LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

RECEIVED    BY    EXCHANGE 

Class 


The  Political  Theories 
of  Martin  Luther 


By 

Luther  Hess  Waring,  Ph.D. 

Author  of  "  Sundays  in  London,"    "The  Law  and  the  Gospel 
of  Labor,"  etc. 


G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons 

New    York     and     London 
fmicfcerbocfcer    press 
1910 


COPYRIGHT,  1910 

BY 
LUTHER  HESS  WARING 


Ube  fmfcfeerbocfter  ftrees.  flew  Kotft 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTE 

THIS  study  was  undertaken  in  the  preparation 
of  a  thesis  on  Martin  Luther's  Political 
Reforms  of  Germany  in  part  fulfilment  of  the  work 
required  by  the  George  Washington  University 
for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy.  The 
field  proved  so  inviting  and  so  important  that 
it  has  led  to  a  work  of  larger  proportions  than 
originally  anticipated,  and  is  given  to  the  world 
in  the  hope  that  it  may  be  of  service  in  throwing 
some  additional  light  on  the  political  theories 
of  the  great  religious  reformer  of  the  sixteenth 
century  and  on  the  credit  that  belongs  to  him 
as  a  forerunner  of  the  modern  theory  of  the  state. 

LUTHER  HESS  WARING. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  1910. 


111 


204431 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I. — HISTORICAL  INTRODUCTION  i 

II. — THE  GERMANY  OF  LUTHER'S  DAY          .       34 

III. — THE  NATURE,  NECESSITY,  AND  ORIGIN 

OF  THE  STATE  61 

IV. — THE  SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  STATE:  (A) 

VIEWED  INTERNALLY        ...       86 

V. — THE  SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  STATE:  (B) 

VIEWED  EXTERNALLY       .         .         .107 

VI. — THE  RIGHT  OF  REFORM  AND  REVOLU- 
TION        135 

VII. — THE  OBJECTS  OF  THE  STATE         .         .     163 
VIII. — THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  STATE     .         .185 

IX. — THE  LIMITS  OF  THE  STATE  .         .         .     232 

v 


vi  Contents 


CHAPTER 


PAGE 


X. — AN  ESTIMATE  OF  LUTHER'S  PLACE  IN  THE 
HISTORY  OF  THE  THEORY  OF  THE 
STATE 262 

APPENDIX:  BIBLIOGRAPHY      ....     283 
INDEX 291 


The   Political   Theories  of   Martin 
Luther 


THE  POLITICAL 
THEORIES  OF  MARTIN  LUTHER 


CHAPTER  I 

HISTORICAL  INTRODUCTION  i 

A  RISTOTLE,  in  a  sense  the  founder  of  political 
-*»•  science,2  declares  that  man  is  by  nature 
a  political  animal3  and  that  the  state  is  natural 
and  necessary  to  him.  It  comes  into  being  for 
the  sake  of  mere  life,  but  it  continues  to  exist 
for  the  sake  of  the  good  life.  It  has  no  more 
important  function  than  that  of  securing  intel- 
lectual culture  and  physical  training  to  its  youth. 
Whether  the  sovereign  power  reside  in  one,  in 
the  few,  or  in  the  many,  the  true  end  of  the  state 

1  A  bibliography  of  the  important  works  consulted  and 
cited  in  this  study  is  given  in  the  Appendix. 

2  Aristotle:  Politics,  i.,  2,  iii.,  7,  viii.,  i.     Bluntschli:  The 
Theory   of  the    State,    p.    35.     Dunning:    Political    Theories 
Ancient  and  Medieval,  p.  49  et  seq.     Pollock:  An  Introduction 
to  the  History  of  the  Science  of  Politics,  p.  1 j  et  seq. 

3  Avdpuiros  0&m  TroXtTtKdv  ffiov  Politics,  i.,  2. 

i 


2    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

is  the  perfection  of  all  its  members.  Government 
conducted  in  the  exclusive  interest  of  any  part, 
though  a  majority  of  its  citizens,  is  a  perversion. 
The  law  is  superior  to  the  individual  man,  and 
its  sovereignty  is  above  every  form  of  personal 
sovereignty. 

The  ancient  state,  in  general,  was  everything. 
It  included  and  interfered  with  all  the  relations 
in  life.  Without  it,  the  citizen  was  nothing,  and 
he  had  no  individual  freedom.  The  idea  of  the 
state  embraced  his  entire  life  "in  community, 
in  religion  and  law,  morals  and  art,  culture  and 
science."1  Religion  and  government,  or  church 
and  state,  were  identical,  and  continued  so  in 
theory  and  generally  in  fact  to  the  time  of 
Constantine.2 

In  the  history  of  Rome  there  was  a  time  when 
the  word  of  Caesar  was  the  law  and  the  worship 
of  Caesar  was  the  religion  of  the  world.  As  Ponti- 
fex  Maximus  he  was  the  high  priest  of  the  national 
religion.  He  held  control  of  both  church  and 
state  in  his  own  person.  Indeed,  in  a  large  sense, 
he  was  the  state,  and  he  was  the  church. 

Identity  of  worship,  among  ancient  civilised  peo- 
ples, constituted  the  unity  of  the  state.  Through- 
out antiquity  the  essence  of  religion  was  associated 

.  i  Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  56. 
*  Prall:  The  State  and  the  Church,  p.  151. 


Historical  Introduction  3 

with  nationality,  and  the  religious  community 
was  contained  in  the  political  community  of  the 
state.1  This  identity  of  two  great  institutions 
so  generally  distinct  in  modern  life,  this  fusion 
and  confusion  of  church  and  state,  arose  from 
the  common  germ  from  which  they  both  sprang, 
i.e.,  the  family.2 

Aristotle  wrote:  "The  care  of  the  public  sacri- 
fices of  the  city  belongs,  according  to  religious  cus- 
tom, not  to  special  priests,  but  to  those  men  who 
derive  their  dignity  from  the  hearth,  and  who  in 
one  place  are  called  kings,  in  another  prytanes,  and 
in  a  third  archons."3  The  sacerdotal  character 
of  primitive  royalty  is  clearly  shown  by  ancient 
writers.  The-office  of  king  and  priest  was  united 
in  one.  "Just  as  in  the  family  the  authority 
was  inherent  in  the  priesthood,  and  the  father, 
as  head  of  the  domestic  worship,  was  at  the  same 
time  judge  and  master,  so  the  high  priest  of 
the  city  was  at  the  same  time  its  political  chief. 
.  .  .  From  the  fact  that  religion  had  so  great  a 
part  in  the  government,  in  the  courts,  and  in  war, 
it  necessarily  followed  that  the  priest  was  at  the 
same  time  magistrate,  judge,  and  military  chief. 
.  .  .  This  royalty,  semi-religious,  semi-political, 

1  Geffcken:  Church  and  State,  i.,  37,  59. 

2  Blackie:  What  does  History  Teach,  p.  68. 
•  Aristotle:  Politics,  vii.,  5,  n  (vi.,  8). 


4      Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

was  established  in  all  cities,  from  their  foundation, 
without  effort  on  the  part  of  the  kings,  without 
resistance  on  the  part  of  the  subjects."1 

The  Romans  gave  a  more  definite  form  to  law, 
as  distinguished  from  morality,  and  thus  limited 
the  jurisdiction  or  the  sphere  of  the  state. 
Furthermore,  they  declared  the  will  of  the  people 
to  be  the  source  of  all  law.2  Great  as  they  were 
as  administrators  and  lawgivers,  they  have  left 
us  nothing  of  importance  in  the  history  of  political 
theory.3 

With  the  introduction  and  early  extension  of 
Christianity,  whose  Founder  and  early  followers 
were  persecuted  to  the  death  by  various  govern- 
ments of  their  day,  another  limitation  was  placed 
upon  the  sphere  of  the  state.  The  church  as  an 
organisation  was  viewed  and  kept  separate  and 
distinct  from  the  state.4  "The  words  of  Christ, 
'My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world,'  mark  a  crisis 
in  history,  the  birth  of  a  new  movement  which  was 


*  Coulanges:  The  Ancient  City,  pp.  235-237. 

2  Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  38. 

3  Pollock:  An  Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Science 
of  Politics,  pp.  31,  33.     Cicero  asserts  that  the  state  is  the 
highest  product  of  human  power,  and  that  there  is  nothing 
in  which  human  excellence  comes  nearer  the  will  of  the  gods 
than  in  the  founding  and  maintenance  of  states.     Cicero: 
De  Repub.,  i.,  7.     Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  37. 

*  Prall:  The  State  and  the  Church,  p.  151. 


Historical  Introduction  5 

to  assign  to  each  of  the  two  powers,  the  state  as 
well  as  the  religious  community,  their  separate 
province."1  The  entire  religious  life  of  the  com- 
munity was  felt  to  be  essentially  independent 
of  the  state,  although  not  altogether  withdrawn 
from  its  care  and  influence,  and  the  state  was 
limited  to  the  field  of  politics  and  law.  The 
dualism  of  church  and  state  became  most  marked.2 
The  historian  Gibbon  viewed  the  church,  as  it 
became  during  Constantine's  reign  and  remained 
for  years  after  his  death,  as  a  republic  or  state 
within  the  state ;  but  it  was  rather  a  superordinated 
genus  embracing  all  the  civil  functions  of  the  state. 
For  a  period  of  fifteen  hundred  years,  one  great 
question  that  more  than  any  other  in  this  field 
of  government  clamoured  for  a  solution  was  the 
relation  that  properly  exists  between  these  two 
great  institutions,  the  church  and  the  state. 
"The  whole  life  and  character  of  western  Christen- 
dom consists  of  the  incessant  action  and  counter- 
action of  church  and  state. " 3 

Galerius,  as  early  as  311  A.D.,  issued  an  edict, 
which  also  bears  the  names  of  Constantine  and 
Licinius,  declaring  paganism  to  be  the  religion 
of  the  state,  but  tolerating  Christianity,  provided 

1  Geffcken:  Church  and  State,  i.,  60. 

2  Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  39.. 

3  Ranke:  History  of  the   Reformation   in   Germany,   i.,    4. 


6      Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

its  adherents  took  no  action  against  the  established 
laws,  religion,  and  government  of  the  state.1  Two 
years  later,  Constantine,  Emperor  of  the  West, 
and  Licinius,  Master  of  the  East,  issued  the 
famous  Edict  of  Milan,2  granting  absolute  freedom 
of  worship,  giving  full  and  free  power  to  the  Chris- 
tians of  exercising  their  own  religion.  The  same 
free  and  unrestricted  liberty  of  worship,  according 
to  the  dictates  of  the  individual  conscience  and 
reason,  with  a  view  to  peace,  was  likewise  con- 
ceded to  all  others  as  to  their  own  religion  or 
observance,  that  each  might  have  the  liberty 
of  the  worship  he  preferred.  Church  property 
that  had  been  confiscated  or  sold  from  the  Chris- 
tian communities  was  ordered  to  be  at  once 
restored,  without  consideration.  Neander  declares 
that  this  new  law  implied  the  introduction  of  a 
universal  and  unconditional  religious  freedom 
and  liberty  of  conscience — a  thing,  in  fact,  wholly 
new.3  In  issuing  this  edict,  Constantine  expresses 
the  hope  that  in  granting  this  liberty  he  may  have 
Heaven's  blessing;  but  there  is  nothing  in  the 

1  Innes:    Church   and    State,   pp.  21-23.     Thatcher:    The 
Ideas   that   have   Influenced  Civilization,  iv.,    17.     Geffcken: 
Church  and  State,  i.,  90. 

2  Eusebius:     Ecclesiastical    History,    Book    x.,    Chap.    v. 
Innes:    Church  and  State,  pp.  23-25.     Thatcher:    The  Ideas 
that  have  Influenced  Civilization,  iv.,  19. 

3  Innes:  Church  and  State,  p.  25. 


Historical  Introduction  7 

language  of  the  document  showing  any  recognition 
of  the  right  of  the  individual  to  freedom  of  con- 
science or  liberty  of  worship.  Tertullian,  writing 
in  the  preceding  century,  asserted  that ' '  the  rights 
of  man  and  the  law  of  nature  give  every  one'  the 
power  of  worshipping  as  he  thinks  proper;  and 
the  religion  of  one  man  neither  injures  nor  bene- 
fits another.  Force  is  indeed  foreign  to  religion." 1 

Constantine's  Edict  of  Toleration  of  323  A.D. 
recognised  freedom  of  conscience  and  of  worship. 
He  summoned  church  councils  to  settle  questions 
of  religious  doctrine,  and  published  their  pro- 
ceedings. He  banished  dissenting  ecclesiastics, 
prohibited  assemblies  of  heretics,  and  confiscated 
their  houses  of  worship.  He  paid  salaries  to 
the  Christian  clergy  from  the  imperial  treasury 
and  bestowed  certain  judicial  functions  on  bish- 
ops.2 It  is  asserted  that  after  he  made  Con- 
stantinople his  capital,  he  prohibited  immoral 
forms  of  pagan  worship  and  their  ordinary  public 
forms  of  sacrifice,  but  this  has  not  been  definitely 
established. 

During  Constantine's  reign  another  voice  is 
heard  in  behalf  of  religious  liberty.  Lactantius, 
tutor  to  the  Emperor's  son  and  a  Christian  convert, 
asserted:  "Religion  cannot  be  compelled;  it  is  by 

1  Innes:  Church  and  State,  pp.  30,  31. 

2  Sheldon :  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  i.  173. 


8      Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

words  rather  than  wounds  that  you  must  bend 
the  will.  Nothing  is  so  much  a  matter  of  free 
will  as  religion.  Our  God  is  the  God  of  all, 
whether  they  will  it  or  no;  but  we  do  not  desire 
that  any  one  should  be  compelled  to  worship 
Him.  .  .  .  Religion  is  the  one  region  in  which 
liberty  has  fixed  its  domicile  and  home."1  In 
353  Constantius  ordered  all  heathen  temples 
closed,  and  declared  further:  "We  will  that  all 
abstain  from  sacrifices:  if  any  be  found  doing 
otherwise,  let  him  be  slain  with  the  sword."  2 

It  did  not  require  centuries,  after  the  removal  of 
the  seat  of  imperial  government  from  the  Tiber 
to  the  Bosphorus,  for  the  old  Roman  Empire, 
as  a  unit,  to  disappear.  The  Bishop  of  Rome 
naturally  acquired  leadership  in  the  West.  He 
defended  that  city  and  its  people  against  the 
northern  barbarians,  but  he  also  won  these  same 
barbarians  to  Christianity.  The  universal  tem- 
poral dominion  of  the  old  empire  passed  away, 
both  in  theory  and  in  fact,  but  it  was  superseded 
by  the  idea  of  universal  spiritual  dominion.  As 
early  as  the  end  of  the  fifth  century,  Bishop  Gela- 
sius  (492-496)  declared  that  "the  See  of  St.  Peter 
has  the  right  to  decide  and  judge  in  all  matters 
concerning  the  faith;  no  .one  dare  criticise  its  judg- 

*  Quoted  by  Innes:  Church  and  State,  p.  31. 
2  Ibid.,  p.  33. 


Historical  Introduction  9 

ment;  as  the  canons  determine  that  persons  from 
all  parts  of  the  world  can  appeal  to  it,  no  one,  on 
the  other  hand,  can  appeal  against  it."1  "It  is 
just  at  the  moment  when  the  Roman  Empire  is 
breaking  up  and  disappearing/*  says  Guizot, 
"that  the  Christian  church  gathers  itself  up  and 
takes  its  definite  form.  Political  unity  perishes, 
religious  unity  emerges."2 

The  year  754  was  a  turning  point  in  the  relation 
of  church  and  state  in  Western  and  Southern 
Europe.  Pippin,  King  of  the  Franks,  accepting 
a  proposal  of  the  Pope,  overthrew  the  Lombards, 
who  were  pressing  the  eternal  city,  and  presented 
Rome  and  the  surrounding  territory  to  the  Pope.3 
Twenty  years  later,  his  son  Charles  the  Great, 
better  known  as  Charlemagne,  assumed  the  iron 
crown  and  ruled  as  protector  of  Rome  for  a  score 
of  years.  He  was  nominally,  however,  under 
the  power  of  the  Roman  Emperor  until  the  close 

1  Geffcken:  Church  and  State,  i.,  147. 

2  See  Kelly:  Evolution  and  Effort,  p.  108. 

3  "Pippin  had  founded  the  temporal  power  of  the  popes 
in  754,  by  transferring  the  cities  of  the  Exarchy  to  Pope 
Stephen  II,   who    already  exercised  a  temporal    poTver  in 
Rome.     The  worldly  sovereignty  grew  gradually  from  this 
basis.     Pippin   greatly    strengthened    the    influence    of    the 
church  by  gifts  of  land,  by  increasing  the  privileges  of  the 
priesthood,   and   by  allowing  the  ecclesiastical   synods,    in 
many  cases,  to  interfere  in  matters  of  civil  government." 
Schoenfeld:  German  Historical  Prose,  p.  35,  note  2. 


io    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

of  that  century.  On  Christmas  day,  in  the  year 
800,  the  Pope,  in  St.  Peter's  at  Rome,  placed  on 
Charlemagne's  head  the  crown  of  the  Caesars, 
and  he  was  acclaimed  as  "Charles  Augustus, 
Emperor,  crowned  of  God." 

The  capitulary  of  Charlemagne  of  802  has  been 
well  termed,  in  a  certain  sense,  the  foundation 
charter  of  that  Holy  Roman  Empire  that  con- 
tinued for  more  than  a  thousand  years.1  Al- 
though the  ideals  and  principles  there  set  forth 
were  never  fully  realised,  they  nevertheless  set 
forth  functions  and  objects  of  civil  government 
worthy  of  note.  The  Emperor  chose  the  most 
prudent  and  the  wisest  of  his  nobles  to  make 
diligent  inquiry  and  report  to  him  where  any 
provisions  were  contained  in  the  law  otherwise 
than  according  to  Christian  right  and  justice, 
that  he  might  better  it,  and  to  fully  administer 
law  and  justice  according  to  the  will  and  the  fear 
of  God,  whether  the  matter  concerned  the  church, 
or  the  poor,  or  wards  and  widows,  or  the  whole 
people.  Where  these  imperial  appointees,  with  the 
assistance  of  the  counts  of  the  provinces,  found 
themselves  unable  to  adjust  a  difficulty  or  render 
justice  with  regard  to  it,  they  were  directed  to 
refer  it,  with  their  reports,  to  the  Emperor's 
court.  All  the  people  of  the  empire  were  exhorted 

»  Until  1806. 


Historical  Introduction  n 

to  live  together  according  to  the  precept  of  God, 
in  a  just  manner,  under  just  judgment,  in  mutual 
charity  and  perfect  peace.  Every  male  citizen, 
layman  and  ecclesiastic  alike,  down  to  those 
under  twelve  years  of  age,  was  required  to  take 
the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Emperor.  Charle- 
magne declared  that  he  himself,  after  God  and 
His  saints,  had  been  constituted  the  protector 
and  defender  of  the  holy  churches  of  God,  of 
widows,  of  orphans,  and  of  strangers.  He  com- 
manded that  judges  should  judge  justly,  according 
to  the  written  law,  and  not  according  to  their 
own  judgment.1  This  first  great  Emperor  of  the 
new  regime  brought  together  under  his  author- 
ity and  government  the  territory  now  included 
in  Germany,  Hungary,  Switzerland,  France,  Bel- 
gium, and  all  of  Italy  except  the  southern 
part.2 

The  old  had  passed  away.  There  was  now  an 
Emperor  of  the  West  and  an  Emperor  of  the 
East.  There  was  a  Church  of  the  West  and  a 
Church  of  the  East.  For  the  purposes  of  this 
study  we  turn  our  attention  exclusively  to  the 
West.  Charlemagne  here  regulated  by  his  capitu- 
laries the  administration  and  discipline  of  the 

1  Mon.  Germ.  Hist.,  LL.  II.,  pp.  91-99.     Henderson:  Select 
Historical  Documents  of  the  Middle  Ages,  p.  189  et  seq. 

2  Wilson:  The  State,  p.  181. 


12    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

Church,1  interfering  even  in  questions  of  doctrine. 
He  convoked  synods,  and  they  in  turn  acknow- 
ledged his  ecclesiastical  supremacy  and  presented 
their  decrees  for  his  confirmation.  He  appointed 
and  deposed  bishops.  Pope  Eugene  II  and  the 
Romans  were  compelled  to  promise  that  no  pope 
should  receive  consecration  in  future  until  he 
had  taken,  before  the  imperial  ambassador,  the 
oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Emperor  as  his  lord  and 
suzerain. 

In  this  continental  contest  for  supremacy,  waged 
for  centuries,  between  the  papal  power  on  the  one 
hand  and  various  civil  governments  on  the  other 
hand,  the  so-called  pseudo-decretals  of  Isidore2 
exerted  a  far-reaching  influence.  Originating 
probably  not  in  Rome  but  certainly  on  behalf 
of  Rome,  they  were  designed  to  strengthen  the 
hands  of  the  pope  against  the  civil  power  by  aim- 
ing to  prove  that  all  bishops  derive  their  authority 
from  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  who  holds  his  own 
immediately  from  Christ.  They  belong  to  the 
late  Carlovingian  period,3  and  aimed  at  no  less 
a  project  than  the  overthrow  of  the  existing  con- 


»  Geffcken:  Church  and  State,  i.,  176.  Prall:  The  State 
and  the  Church,  p.  158. 

2  D'Aubigne:  History  of  the  Reformation  of  the  Sixteenth 
Century,  i.,  45. 

a  Schoenfeld:  German  Historical  Prose,  p.  67,  note  2. 


Historical  Introduction  13 

stitution  of  the  church,  which  everywhere  still 
essentially  rested  on  the  authority  of  the  metro- 
politan. They  sought  to  place  the  entire  church 
in  immediate  subjection  to  the  pope  of  Rome, 
and  to  establish  a  unity  of  the  spiritual  power, 
which  would  lead  to  its  emancipation  from  the 
temporal.1 

Centuries  before,  St.  Augustine's  De  Civitate  Dei 
had  presented  the  civitas  terrena  (kingdom  or  city 
of  the  world)  in  contrast  with  the  civitas  Dei  (king- 
dom or  city  of  God) ;  but  the  Roman  canonists 
transformed  his  glorious  vision  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  into  that  kingdom  of  the  world  which  he  rep- 
robated ;  and  his  ideal  kingdom  of  God  became  a 
temporal  kingdom,  with  all  the  accompaniments 
of  conquest,  fraud,  and  violence  which,  according 
to  the  great  theologians  of  the  West,  naturally 
belonged  to  such  an  organisation.  Augustine's 
ideal  city,  or  kingdom  of  God,  continued  for  cen- 
turies, during  the  earlier  Middle  Ages,  to  attract 
the  attention  and  delight  the  heart  of  the  faith- 
ful, as  they  contemplated  the  visible  ecclesiastical 
Empire  of  Rome.2  "No  good  Catholic  Christian 
doubted  that  in  spiritual  things  the  clergy  were 
the  divinely-appointed  superiors  of  the  laity,  that 
this  power  proceeded  from  the  right  of  the  priests 

1  Ranke:  History  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany,  i.,  9. 

2  Lindsay:  A  History  of  the  Reformation,  i.,  3. 


14    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

to  celebrate  the  sacraments,  that  the  pope  was 
the  real  possessor  of  this  power,  and  was  far 
superior  to  all  secular  authority.  The  question, 
however,  as  to  the  pope's  power  to  rule  was 
certainly  a  subject  of  controversy. "  1 

As  early  as  the  year  829,  episcopal  utterances 
about  church  and  state  asserted  the  principle 
universalis  sancta  ecclesia  Dei  unum  corpus  mani- 
feste  esse  credatur  eiusque  caput  Christus;  and  from 
this  time  forward  mankind  is  commonly  presented 
as  one  body  with  a  God-willed  spiritual  and  tem- 
poral constitution.2  It  was  this  claim  on  the 
part  of  the  Roman  Church  and  its  acceptance 
by  the  world  that  forced  Emperor  Henry  IV  to 
Canossa,  there  to  stand  for  three  days  outside 
the  palace,  barefoot,  in  the  depth  of  winter,3 
until  Pope  Gregory  VII  chose  to  receive  and 
grudgingly  pardon  him.  This  pope  declared 
the  clergy  independent  of  the  civil  power  and 
without  its  jurisdiction.  They  were  to  pay  taxes 
to  the  church  only,  and  were  subject  to  no  author- 
ity but  that  of  the  pope.  Gregory  was  the  first 
to  renew  the  teaching  of  St.  Augustine  that  the 
temporal  power  is  the  work  of  sin  and  the  devil. 

»  Harnack:  History  of  Dogma,  vi.,  132,  note. 

2  Gierke:  Political  Theories  of  the  Middle  Age,  p.  103. 

3  Prescott :  Robertson's  History  of  the  Reign  of  the  Emperor 
Charles  V,  i.,  205. 


Historical  Introduction  15 

He  asserted  the  right  of  papal  appointment  of 
kaisers  and  kings,  and  charged  all  men,  whom  he 
had  confirmed  in  regia  dignitate,  to  obey  him. 
The  bearer  of  the  keys  must  judge  temporal 
rulers,  but  he  himself  can  be  judged  by  none.1 
In  the  collection  of  capitularies  of  Benedictus 
Levita,  the  principle  is  prominently  set  forth 
that  no  constitution  in  the  world  is  of  any  force 
or  validity  against  the  decisions  of  the  popes 
of  Rome.  Kings  acting  in  opposition  to  this 
principle  are  threatened  with  divine  punishment.2 
One  of  the  documents  fpund  among  the  pseudo- 
Isidorian  decretals,  known  as  the  Constantine 
Donation,3  purports  to  be  a  grant  from  Constantine 
to  the  pope  of  imperial  honours,  and  of  the  primacy 
over  Ant ioch,  Alexandria, Constantinople, and  Jeru- 
salem, as  also  over  all  other  churches  in  the  world. 
It  makes  him  the  chief  judge  of  the  clergy,  and 
tenders  him  the  imperial  diadem,  granting  him 
dominion  over  all  Italy,  including  Rome,  though 
under  the  terms  employed — Italia  sen  occiden- 
talium  regionum, — later  popes  claimed  nothing 

1  Gierke:  Political  Theories  of  the  Middle  Age,  pp.  109,  117. 
Stubbs:  Constitutional   History   of  England,    iii.,  291,    292. 
Sidgwick:  The  Development  of  European  Polity,  p.  226  et  seq. 

2  Benedicti  Capitularia,  lib.  ii.,  p.  322,  and  lib.  iii.,  p.  346. 
Ranker  History  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany,  i.,  u. 

3  Henderson:  Select    Historical   Documents    of  the    Middle 
Ages,  pp.  269,  270,  319. 


1 6    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

less  than  all  Western  Europe.  Though  the 
authenticity  of  this  document  was  questioned, 
and  occasionally  denied,  even  in  the  Middle  Ages, 
it  was  received  into  various  collections  of  canon 
law.  It  was  seriously  attacked,  however,  in  the 
fifteenth  century  and  its  falseness  finally  recog- 
nised by  historians  generally.  Adrian  IV  relied 
on  it,  according  to  John  of  Salisbury,  in  asseivting 
the  right  to  dispose  of  Ireland  in  1155.  In  the 
bull  conferring  upon  Henry  II  of  England  the 
right  to  conquer  Ireland,  Adrian  says 1 :  "  There 
is  indeed  no  doubt,  as  thy  Highness  doth 
also  acknowledge,  that  Ireland  and  all  other 
islands  which  Christ  the  Sun  of  Righteousness 
has  illumined,  and  which  have  received  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Christian  faith,  belong  to  the  juris- 
diction of  St.  Peter  and  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Church."  He  gives  his  assent  to  the  king's 
petition,  and  expresses  his  pleasure  that  the  king, 
"for  the  enlargement  of  the  bounds  of  the  church, 
for  the  restraint  of  vice,  for  the  correction  of 
morals  and  the  introduction  of  virtues,  for  the 
advancement  of  the  Christian  religion,"  should 
enter  that  island.  It  is  further  provided  that 

1  Henderson:  Select  Historical  Documents  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  pp.  10,  ii.  Berington:  The  History  of  the  Reign  of 
Henry  II,  i.,  306,  307.  Scholars  are  not  fully  agreed  as  to 
the  genuineness  of  this  papal  bull. 


Historical  Introduction  17 

the  rights  of  the  church  remain  inviolate  and 
entire;  and  there  is  reserved  to  St.  Peter  and  the 
Holy  Roman  Church  the  annual  pension  of  one 
penny  from  each  and  every  house  on  the  island. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  following  century,  at 
a  time  when  Aragon  and  Hungary  were  papal 
fiefs  and  the  Latin  East  was  entirely  subject  to 
the  Pope,  King  John  of  England,  in  1213,  after 
a  losing  struggle  with  Pope  Innocent,  laid  his 
realm  at  the  feet  of  the  Pope's  legate,  to  receive 
it  back  as  a  fief  from  Rome.  In  his  grant 
he  decrees  the  concession  of  the  kingdoms  of 
England  and  Ireland  with  all  their  "rights  and 
appurtenances"  to  God  and  His  holy  Apostles, 
Peter  and  Paul,  and  to  our  mother  the  Holy 
Roman  Church,  and  to  our  Lord  Pope  Innocent 
and  to  his  Catholic  successors,  for  the  remission 
of  our  sins  and  of  those  of  our  whole  race,  as  well 
for  the  living  as  for  the  dead;  and  now  receiving 
and  holding  them,  as  it  were  a  vassal,  from  God 
and  the  Roman  Church,  we  perform  and  swear 
fealty  for  them  to  him  our  aforesaid  Lord  Pope 
Innocent,  and  his  Catholic  successors  and  the 
Roman  Church.  The  concession  further  declares 
that  the  Roman  Church  shall  receive  annually, 
for  all  the  service  and  customs  which  ought  to 
be  rendered  it,  saving  in  all  things  the  penny  of 
St.  Peter,  a  thousand  marks  sterling,  seven  hun- 


1 8    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

dred  namely  for  the  kingdom  of  England  and 
three  hundred  for  the  kingdom  of  Ireland.  The 
king  asserts  that  the  transfer  was  not  induced 
by  force  or  compelled  by  fear,  but  of  his  own  good 
and  spontaneous  will  and  by  the  common  counsel 
of  his  barons.1  Though  there  was  a  sense  of 
national  shame  in  later  ages  over  this  settlement 
of  the  difficulties  in  which  the  king  and  the  king- 
dom were  involved,  "we  see  little  trace  of  such 
a  feeling  in  the  contemporary  accounts  of  the 
time."2 

Having  deposed  one  emperor  and  claiming  the 
right  to  appoint  his  successor,  Innocent  IV  wrote 
to  the  German  princes  in  1246:  "We  command 
you,  since  our  beloved  son,  the  Landgrave  of 
Thuringia,  is  ready  to  take  upon  himself  the  office 
of  emperor,  that  you  proceed  to  elect  him 
unanimously  without  delay."3 

There  are  two  writers  of  this  period,  of  lasting 
renown,  to  whom  reference  must  be  made,  the 
one  a  defender  of  the  papal  claims  and  the  other 
an  opponent.  Thomas  Aquinas  sought  to  show 
that  submission  to  the  Roman  pontiff  is  necessary 
for  every  human  being.  He  asserted  that  under 

»  Henderson:  Select  Historical  Documents  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  pp.  3  59, 430.  Stubbs :  Constitutional  History  of  England, 
i.,  522. 

2  Green:  A  Short  History  of  the  English  People,  i.,  236. 

3  Ranke:  History  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany,  i.,  40. 


Historical  Introduction  19 

the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament,  the  king 
is  subject  to  the  priest  in  so  far  that  if  a  king 
prove  to  be  a  heretic  or  a  schismatic,  the  pope 
has  a  right  to  deprive  him  of  all  royal  authority 
by  releasing  his  subjects  from  their  allegiance.1 
Aquinas  teaches  the  principle  of  unity  before 
plurality,  and  employs  the  maxim  omnis  multitude 
derivatur  ab  uno.  He  sees  the  "prototypes  of  the 
state  in  the  world  with  its  one  God,  in  the  micro- 
cosm of  man  with  its  single  soul,  in  the  unifying 
principle  which  prevails  among  the  powers  of 
the  soul,  and  which  prevails  also  in  the  natural 
body  and  in  the  animal  kingdom."  The  church 
has  the  care  of  the  ultimate  end;  civil  rulers  have 
merely  the  care  of  antecedent  ends.2 

Dante  holds  the  principle  of  unity  to  be  the 
source  of  all  good;  and  bases  his  demand  for  a 
single  rule  in  every  whole  on  the  types  of  an 
ordinatio  ad  unum,  as  found  in  the  world- whole, 
among  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  everywhere  on 
earth.3  To  accomplish  the  common  purposes 

1  Compare    his    Opuscula    contra    errores    Gracorum;    De 
regimine  principum.     Lindsay :  A  History  of  the  Reformation, 
i.,  4. 

2  Gierke:  Political  Theories  of  the  Middle  Age,  pp.  101,  in. 
See  De  regimine  principum,  i.,  2,  3, 12,  14;  alsoSumma  contra 
gentil.,  iii.,  q.  81. 

3  Dante:  Monarchia,  i.,   5-16.      Gierke:  Political  Theories 
of  the  Middle  Age,  p.  102. 


v/ 


20    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

of  the  race,  nothing  but  a  world  empire  will  suffice. 
He  argued  that  a  universal  monarch,  with  no 
rival  to  fear  and  no  further  ambition  to  satisfy, 
could  have  no  motive  for  ruling  otherwise  than 
wisely  and  just.  He  expressly  adopted  Aristotle's 
doctrine  that  the  merit  of  a  government  must  be 
gauged  by  its  promotion  of  the  welfare  of  all 
its  subjects.  The  aim  of  the  rightful  common- 
wealth is  liberty,  i.  e.,  that  men  may  live  for  their 
own  sake.  Citizens  are  not  for  the  sake  of  the 
consuls;  a  nation  is  not  for  the  king.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  consuls  are  for  the  sake  of  the  citizens 
and  the  king  is  for  the  sake  of  the  nation.  The 
state  is  not  subordinate  to  laws,  but  laws  to  the 
state.  The  monarch  is  to  be  deemed  the  servant 
of  all. 1  The  monarch  Dante  had  in  mind,  it  must 
be  noted,  is  not  a  world  despot,  but  a  ruler  set 
over  the  princes  of  various  states  to  keep  the 
peace  between  them.  He  puts  imperial  sover- 
eignty in  the  place  of  papal  supremacy.2 

Pope  Boniface,  in  1296,  issued  the  bull  Clericis 
Laicos,  in  which  he  declares  antiquity  teaches 
us  that  laymen  are  in  a  high  degree  hostile  to 
the  clergy,  a  fact  further  established  "by  the 
experiences  of  the  present  times,"  referring  here 

1  Pollock:  An  Introduction   to   the   History  of  the   Science 
of  Politics,  pp.  37,  38. 

2  Bullowa:  The  History  of  the  Theory  of  Sovereignty,  p.  21. 


Historical  Introduction  21 

to  the  taxes  imposed  upon  the  clergy  of  France 
and  England  by  their  respective  kings.  The  Pope 
says  they  do  not  have  the  prudence  to  consider 
that  all  jurisdiction  is  denied  them  over  the  clergy 
— over  both  the  persons  and  the  property  of 
ecclesiastics.  He  therefore  decrees  that  any 
prelates  or  ecclesiastics,  monastic  or  secular, 
who  may  pay  or  agree  to  pay  to  laymen  any  such 
levies  or  taxes,  under  whatever  name  or  pretence, 
without  permission  of  the  Apostolic  Chair;  and 
any  emperors,  kings,  princes,  barons,  or  other  per- 
sons, by  whatever  name  called,  wherever  situated, 
who  shall  impose  or  receive  such  payments  or  take 
any  action  concerning  them,  publicly  or  secretly, 
without  such  permission,  shall  incur,  by  the  act 
itself,  the  sentence  of  excommunication.  Corpora- 
tions guilty  in  these  matters  are  placed  under  the 
ecclesiastical  interdict.  Prelates  and  all  ecclesias- 
tics acquiescing  in  any  such  demands,  herein 
forbidden,  are  subject  to  deposition  and  excom- 
munication.1 The  King  of  England  obeyed  this 
mandate,  but  the  King  of  France  did  not.  There- 
upon began  a  conflict  that  led  eventually  and 
indirectly  to  the  Babylonian  Captivity. 

1  Henderson:  Select  Historical  Documents  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  pp.  359,  432  et  seq.  Robinson:  Translations  and 
Reprints  from  the  Original  Sources  of  European  History,  iii., 
6,  pp.  23-25. 


22    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

/  Towards  the  close  of  this  struggle  between 
Boniface  VIII  and  Philip,  the  pope  issued  another 
bull,  known  as  the  Unam  Sanctam,1  published 
in  1302,  in  which  he  declared  that  there  is  neither 
salvation  nor  remission  of  sins  outside  of  the  one 
Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church.  The  Lord 
says  in  John  that  there  is  one  fold,  one  shepherd, 
and  one  only.  We  are  told  by  the  word  of  the 
Gospel  that  in  this  His  fold  there  are  two  swords 
—a  spiritual  and  a  temporal.  Surely  he  who 
denies  that  the  temporal  sword  is  in  the  power  of 
Peter  wrongly  interprets  the  word  of  the  Lord 
when  He  says : '  *  Put  up  thy  sword  in  its  scabbard. " 
Both  swords,  the  spiritual  and  the  material, 
therefore,  are  in  the  power  of  the  church,  the  one, 
indeed,  to  be  wielded  for  the  church,  the  other 
by  the  church:  the  one  by  the  hand  of  the  priest, 
the  other  by  the  hand  of  kings  and  knights,  but 
at  the  will  and  sufferance  of  the  priest.  One 
sword,  moreover,  ought  to  be  under  the  other, 
and  the  temporal  authority  subject  to  the  spirit- 
ual. For  when  the  Apostle  says,  "There  is  no 
power  but  of  God,  and  the  powers  that  are  of 
God  are  ordained,"  they  would  not  be  ordained 

i  Henderson:  Select  Historical  Documents  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  pp.  359,  435.  Robinson:  Translations  and  Reprints 
from  the  Original  Sources  of  European  History,  iii.,  6,  pp. 
20-23. 


Historical  Introduction  23 

unless  sword  were  under  sword  and  the  lesser 
one,  as  it  were,  were  led  by  the  other  to  great 
deeds.  That  the  spiritual  exceeds  any  earthly 
power  in  dignity  and  nobility  we  ought  the  more 
openly  to  confess,  as  spiritual  interests  excel 
temporal  ones  in  importance.  We  see  this,  too, 
in  the  giving  of  tithes,  in  the  benediction  and  the 
sanctification;  from  the  recognition  of  this  power 
and  the  control  of  these  same  things.  For, 
the  truth  bearing  witness,  it  is  for  the  spiritual 
power  to  establish  the  earthly  power  and  judge 
it,  if  it  be  not  good.  The  spiritual  man  judges 
in  all  things,  but  he  himself  is  judged  by  no  one. 
Indeed,  we  declare,  announce  and  define  that  it  is 
altogether  necessary  to  salvation  for  every  human 
creature  to  be  subject  to  the  Roman  Pontiff. 

Alvarius  Pelagius,  writing  from  1330  to  1340, 
maintained  that  as  the  church,  which  is  cos- 
mopolis,  can  give,  by  baptism,  and  take  away 
the  right  of  citizenship,  so  she  has  the  right 
to  distribute  offices  among  her  citizens.  The 
priestly  acts  of  sacerdotal  consecration  and 
unction,  which  first  give  temporal  authority  over 
God's  people,  must  be  regarded  as  approval  and 
confirmation. 1 

Pope  John  XXII,  of  this  same  period,  claimed 
the  right  of  looking  into  the  merits  of  an  emperor- 

1  Gierke:  Political  Theories  of  the  Middle  Age,  p.  113. 


24    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

elect,  and  of  rejecting  him  if  he  saw  proper. 
In  the  case  of  a  disputed  election,  he  asserted 
the  right  to  administer  the  government  himself 
until  the  contest  should  be  settled. 1  In  connection 
with  this  dispute  between  Louis  the  Bavarian 
and  the  pope — one  of  the  last  great  mediaeval 
struggles  between  the  empire  and  the  papacy — 
and  as  a  reply  to  these  papal  claims,  the  German 
princes,  assembled  in  the  Imperial  Diet  held  at 
Frankfort  in  1338,  passed  the  famous  Licet  Juris.2 
In  this  decree,  the  electors  stoutly  and  unequivo- 
cally declare  the  independent  rights  and  powers 
of  the  Emperor,  as  over  against  those  of  the  pope. 
They  thus  take  issue  with  the  claims  and  declara- 
tions of  various  popes  during  the  preceding  cen- 
turies. They  maintain  that  the  testimony  of  both 
civil  and  canon  law  manifestly  proves  that  the 
imperial  dignity  and  power  proceeded  from  of 
old  directly  through  the  Son  of  God,  and  that 
God  openly  gave  laws  to  the  human  race  through 
the  emperor  and  the  kings  of  the  world;  and  since 
the  emperor  is  made  true  emperor  by  the  election 
alone  of  those  to  whom  it  pertains,  he  does  not 

1  Ranker  History  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany,   i.,  45. 

2  Henderson:    Select   Historical   Documents  of  the   Middle 
Ages,    pp.  360,  437.     Robinson:    Translations  and  Reprints 
from  the  Original  Sources  of  European  History,  iii.,,6,  pp.  25, 
26. 


Historical  Introduction  25 

need  the  confirmation  or  approbation  of  any  one 
else.  He  has  no  superior  on  earth  as  to  temporal 
things,  and  peoples  and  nations  are  subject  to 
him.  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself  ordered 
men  to  render  unto  God  the  things  that  are  God's 
and  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's. 
We  declare,  by  the  counsel  and  consent  of  the 
electors  and  of  the  other  princes  of  the  empire, 
that  the  imperial  dignity  and  power  come 
directly  from  God  alone,  and  that  by  the  old  and 
approved  right  and  custom  of  the  empire,  after 
any  one  is  chosen  emperor  or  king  by  the  electors 
of  the  empire,  unanimously  or  by  majority  vote, 
he  is  at  once,  in  consequence  of  such  election  alone, 
to  be  considered  and  regarded  by  all  as  the  true 
and  lawful  king  and  emperor  of  the  Romans, 
and  he  should  be  obeyed  by  all  the  subjects  of 
the  empire;  and  he  shall  have  and  be  considered 
and  firmly  asserted  by  all  to  have  and  to  hold 
the  imperial  administration  and  jurisdiction  and 
the  plenitude  of  the  imperial  power.  He  does  not 
need  the  approbation,  confirmation,  authority,  or 
consent  of  the  Apostolic  See  or  of  any  one  else. 
To  hold,  assert,  or  act  otherwise  is  declared  to  be 
high  treason,  subject  to  all  its  penalties,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  loss  of  all  fiefs,  favours,  jurisdictions, 
privileges,  and  immunities  granted  or  held  from 
the  empire.  The  law  further  denies  and  declares 


26    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

false  the  assertion  that  the  imperial  dignity  and 
power  come  from  the  pope  and  that  he  who  is 
elected  emperor  is  not  true  emperor  or  king  unless 
and  until  he  be  confirmed  and  crowned  by  or 
through  the  pope  or  the  Apostolic  See. 

The  electors  saw  clearly  that  their  claim  of  the 
right  to  elect  the  emperor  was  at  stake  in  the 
pope's  claim  of  the  right  to  depose  the  emperor. 
This  and  the  succeeding  popes,  however,  did  not 
abate  their  claims  to  universal  sovereignty.  They 
were  asserted  during  the  exile  at  Avignon  and 
in  the  time  of  the  Great  Schism.  Alexander  VI, 
in  the  bull  Inter  C ester  a  Divines,  of  May  4,  1493, 
acting  as  head  of  the  universe,  made  over  the 
new  world,  by  legal  deed  of  gift,  to  Isabella  of 
Castile  and  Ferdinand  of  Aragon;  and  Pope  Leo 
X,  in  the  bull  Pastor  JEternus,  of  1516 — just  the 
year  before  Martin  Luther  nailed  his  ninety-five 
theses  on  the  church  door  at  Wittenberg — asserted 
the  same  claims  to  universal  sovereignty  as 
contained  in  the  Unam  Sanctam.1 

Marsilius  of  Padua,  writing  in  the  early  part  of 
the  fourteenth  century,  stood  practically  alone  in 
the  Middle  Ages  in  teaching  the  principle  of  the 
complete  absorption  of  church  in  state.  Church 
property  is  state  property.  Church  offices  are 
offices  of  state.  The  government  of  the  church 

1  Lindsay:  A  History  of  the  Reformation,  i.,  4,  5. 


Historical  Introduction  27 

is  a  part  of  the  government  of  the  state.  Like 
others,  Marsilius  reached  conclusions  from  the 
idea  of  unity,  but  in  his  case  this  idea  was  already 
"transmuting  itself  into  the  ' antique-modern ' 
idea  of  an  all-comprehending  internal  unity  of 
the  state  and  was  proclaiming  in  advance  those 
principles  of  the  state's  absoluteness  which  would 
only  attain  maturity  in  a  then  distant  future."1 
He  denied  to  the  pope  any  right  of  examining  an 
election.2  He  would  have  the  temporal  laws  and 
magistrates  make  no  difference  of  persons  on  the 
score  of  position  or  religious  opinion.  He  clearly 
distinguished  between  the  executive  and  the 
legislative  powers  of  government,  and  advocated 
a  complete  separation  of  temporal  from  spiritual 
authority.  Indirectly,  he  noted  the  difference 
between  state  and  government.  He  denied  to 
the  church  any  coercion  of  conscience,  even  in 
spiritual  matters;  and  suggested  the  framing  of 
laws  by  duly  elected  representatives.3  It  is  in 
his  views  as  to  the  organisation  and  powers  of 
political  and  ecclesiastical  societies  that  he  sounds 
a  new  note.  He  draws  largely  from  Aristotle  as 

»  Gierke:  Political  Theories  of  the  Middle  Age,  pp.  16,  94, 
120.,  191. 

2  Marsilius:  Defensor  Pacis,  ii.,  26. 

3  Pollock:  An  Introduction  to   the   History  of  the   Science 
of  Politics,  p.  41. 


28    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

to  the  origin  and  object  of  civil  government.  He 
says,  too,  that,  according  to  truth  and  the  opinion 
of  Aristotle,  the  legislator  is  the  people,  or  the 
majority  of  them,  commanding  or  determining 
that  something  be  done  or  refrained  from  in  the 
field  of  social  human  action,  under  pain  of  some 
temporal  punishment.1  In  the  church,  as  well  as 
in  the  state,  he  believes  in  popular  sovereignty. 
The  sovereign  ecclesiastical  community  is  identical 
with  the  political  assembly  of  the  citizens.2  Indeed 
the  treatise  Defensor  Pads,  in  the  writing  of  which 
Marsilius  had  an  associate,  presents  a  theory  of 
church  and  state  "in  many  respects  out  of  all 
relation  to  the  current  of  mediaeval  thought  and 
accords  with  the  full  spirit  of  the  Reformation 
and  the  Revolution.  ...  In  general,  his  whole 
attitude  toward  the  historical  development  and 
tlie~dogmatic  supports  of  the  Roman  church  is 
precisely  that  which  was  assumed  by  the  protes- 
tants  after  the  Lutheran  revolt."3  The  govern- 
ment, according  to  his  view,  is  established  to 
maintain  peace,  and  the  state  exists  to  render 
a  higher  life  possible.4  The  power  of  the  king 
proceeds  from  his  election — for  a  people  must 

*  Defensor  Pads,  i.,  12. 

2  Gierke:  Political  Theories  of  the  Middle  Age,  p.  95. 

3  Dunning:    Political  Theories  Ancient  and  Mediaeval,  pp. 
238,  244.  *  Defensor  Pads,  i.,  i. 


Historical  Introduction  29 

choose  a  ruler;  and  he  is  in  no  respect  absolute, 
but  subject  both  to  the  laws  and  to  the  final 
judgment  of  the  popular  will.1  Denying  the 
pre-eminence  of  the  Roman  See,  even  in  spiritual 
matters,  Marsilius  suffered  excommunication.2 

In  the  writjnglfbf  William  of  Ockham,  largely 
in  the  form  of  disputations,  it  is  difficult  to  dis- 
cover his  own  personal  views  as  distinct  from 
those  of  the  persons  he  introduces  into  the  dis- 
cussions. The  influence  of  Aristotle,  Dante,  and 
Marsilius  is  in  evidence.  He  makes  it  the  charac- 
teristic mark  of  the  royal  monarchy  that  the 
ruler,  though  free  from  all  restraint  of  human 
law,  is  nevertheless  subject  to  the  law  of  nature. 
The  general  functions  of  the  state  are  legislation, 
the  maintenance  of  justice,  and  the  promotion 
of  virtue,  but  the  punishment  of  offenders  is 
the  chief  function.3  The  coercive  authority  must 
be  in  the  prince.  The  emperor,  and  the  same  is 
true  of  any  other  ruler,  is  not  unlimited  in  author- 
ity, even  in  temporal  matters.  He  is  subject  to 
the  provision  that  his  government  be  just  and 
useful  to  the  people.4  Ockham  goes  so  far  as  to 

1  Bullowa:  The  History  of  the  Theory  of  Sovereignty,  p.  22. 

2  Pollock:  An  Introduction   to   the   History  of  the   Science 
of  Politics,  p.  41.  3  Ockham:  Octo  Qucestiones,  iii.,  6. 

4  Dunning:  Political  Theories  Ancient  and  Mediceval,  pp. 
244-248. 


30    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

hold  that,  if  there  were  to  be  but  one  state  for 
the  entire  world,  with  a  single  head,  then  this 
head  must  be  the  emperor,  and  the  church  can 
be  nothing  more  than  a  part  of  his  realm.1  Mar- 
silius  had  suggested  that  the  world  of  Christian 
believers  be  so  represented  that  each  province 
or  community  have  delegates  according  to  the 
"number  and  quality"  of  its  inhabitants;  but 
Ockham  presents  the  idea  of  all  the  believers  of  a 
parish  or  community  choosing  delegates  to  an 
electoral  assembly  for  the  diocese  or  other  given 
district,  and  delegates  to  a  representative  general 
council  could  then  be  chosen  by  these  assemblies. 2 
He  assumed  the  right  of  every  people,  every 
community,  and  every  corporation  (corpus)  to 
legislate  under  certain  circumstances  for  itself.3 
Wycliffe  and  Huss  pointedly  demanded  that  the 
church  should  not  be  conceived  as  a  temporal 
state,  but  in  a  more  internal  manner,  as  the 
community  of  the  predestinated.4 

Nicholas  of  Cusa  asserted  that  it  was  impossible 
to  improve  the  church  without  reforming  the 
empire.  He  recommended,  therefore,  the  separa- 
tion and  emancipation  of  civil  government.  The 

1  Gierke:  Political  Theories  of  the  Middle  Age,  p.  16. 

2  Ockham:  Dialogus  I.,  vi.  84. 

3  Dunning:  Political  Theories  Ancient  and  Mediaval,  p.  252. 
*  Gierke:  Political  Theories  of  the  Middle  Age,  p.  19. 


Historical  Introduction  31 

jurisdiction  of  spiritual  and  temporal  courts 
respectively  should  be  clearly  defined.  He  pre- 
sented a  plan  for  superior  courts  of  justice,  whose 
assessors  should  be  chosen  from  the  nobles,  the 
clergy  and  citizens,  with  power  to  hear  appeals 
from  inferior  courts,  and  also  to  hear  and  decide 
cases  between  princes  in  the  first  instance.  He 
recommended  annual  meetings  of  the  Imperial 
Diet  for  the  proper  development  and  maintenance 
of  the  authority,  unity  and  strength  of  the  realm. 
This  body  should  settle  differences  and  pass 
general  laws  for  the  empire,  which  every  member 
should  sign,  seal,  and  observe.  No  ecclesiastic, 
he  contended,  should  be  exempted  from  their 
operation.  He  deemed  a  standing  army  a  neces- 
sity, in  order  to  maintain  order  and  punish  the 
lawless.  He  suggested  that  the  state  might 
retain  for  its  own  use,  as  determined  by  the  Diet, 
a  percentage  of  the  numerous  tolls  granted  to 
individuals. 1 

He  asserted,  too,  as  a  principle  of  divine  and 
natural  right,  that  the  acceptance  of  those  to  whom 
it  applies  is  the  basis  for  the  validity  of  every  law, 
and  that  general  consent  is  the  sole  source  of 
obligation.  Since  all  men  are  by  nature  free, 
all  government,  whether  in  the  form  of  written 

1  De  Concordantia  Catholica,  iii.,  133.  Ranker  History  of 
the  Reformation  in  Germany,  i.,  111-113. 


32    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

law  or  of  a  ruler's  will,  springs  solely  from  the 
consent  of  the  subjects.  Since  all  men  are  by 
nature  equally  endowed  with  power,  the  superior 
position  of  any  one  can  be  due  only  to  the  choice 
and  consent  of  the  rest.1  Nicholas  of  Cusa  ad- 
vances beyond  his  predecessors  in  applying  these 
principles,  which  were  already  familiar  to  writers 
on  morality  and  private  law,  to  public  law.  He 
does  not  apply  his  theories,  however,  to  the  secular 
state  of  his  day,  as  one  might  expect.  The  choice 
of  the  imperial  electors  is  viewed  as  the  choice  of 
the  people,  and  the  Imperial  Diet  is  the  council 
representing  the  popular  consent.2  There  is  no 
suggestion  in  his  writings  of  the  popular  choice 
of  particular  representatives,  based  on  territory 
and  population.3 

To  Machiavelli — standing  "on  the  threshold  of 
political  science"4  the  state  is  the  highest  kind 
of  existence.  It  is  neither  a  moral  nor  a  legal, 
but  a  purely  political  institution.  Utility  is  the 
standard  of  its  action.  What  is  injurious  to  its 
welfare  must  be  avoided.  Like  ancient  writers, 
Machiavelli  aims  at  the  welfare  of  the  state 

*  De  Concordantia  Catholica,  ii.,  12,  14. 
a  Ibid.,  iii.,  4,  25. 

3  Dunning:  Political  Theories  Ancient  and  Mediaeval,  pp. 
273-276. 

*  Pollock:  An  Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Science  of 
Politics,  p.  46. 


Historical  Introduction  33 

per  se  rather  than  the  welfare  of  its  citizens.  His 
"great  service  was  to  make  political  science  inde- 
pendent of  theology,  and  to  have  discovered  the 
distinction  between  public  law  (Statsrecht)  and 
politics  (Politik)."1 

1  Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  pp.  61,  62. 

3 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  GERMANY  OF  LUTHER'S  DAY 


AT  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  and  the  dawn  of 
the  sixteenth  centuries  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire  was  little  more  than  a  German  power.1 
It  was  composed  of  a  number  of  virtually  sovereign 
states,  principalities,  and  free  cities — each  with 
its  own  diet,  representative  assembly,  senate,  or 
council;  each  with  its  elector,  prince,  or  mayor 
— at  the  head  of  all  of  which  was  an  emperor,2 

1  Bryce:  The  Holy  Roman  Empire,  pp.  364,  365. 

2  "During  all  the  earlier  years  of  the  empire,  while  an 
election  and  crowning  in  Germany  entitled  the  person  thus 
crowned  to  become  emperor,  he  was  not  considered  emperor 
nor  allowed  to  assume  that  title,  until  he  had  made  a  journey 
to  Italy  and  been  crowned  by  the  pope.     In  one  or  two  in- 
stances this  formality  was  dispensed  with,  and  the  pope  gave 
his  consent  for  the  king  to  assume  the  title  of  emperor  and  to 
exercise  imperial  authority  without  being  crowned.     It  was 
the  common  practice  for  the  electors,  during  the  life  of  the 
emperor,  to  choose  his  successor,  who  on  the  death  of  the 
emperor  was  entitled  immediately,  on  taking  the  proper  steps, 
to  succeed  him.    Until  the  death  of  the  emperor,  and,  indeed, 
until  his  crowning    by  the  pope,  he  was  known  after  his 
election  and  crowning  as  such,  as  King  of  the   Romans." 
Case:  European  Constitutional  History,  pp.  in,  112. 

34 


The  Germany  of  Luther's  Day       35 

chosen  for  life  by  the  electoral  rulers  within  the 
bounds  of  the  empire,  with  an  Imperial  Diet 
composed  of  various  representatives  from  all 
parts  of  the  empire.  The  imperial  revenues,  so 
far  as  the  emperor  personally  was  concerned,  were 
not  more  than  those  of  a  wealthy  individual; 
and  the  empire's  hold  on  outlying  districts  was  so 
weak  that  it  is  difficult  to  tell  whether  some  such 
lands  belonged  to  it  or  not.  Switzerland,  rather 
than  pay  Maximilian  the  imperial  tax,  secured 
its  freedom  with  the  sword.  Italy  was  practically 
lost  in  the  Hohenstaufen  period.  The  emperors 
were  stripped  of  almost  all  their  territorial  pro- 
perty, and  were  left  without  a  single  city  or  a 
single  castle  belonging  to  them  as  emperors.1 
Among  the  powers  belonging  exclusively  and 
solely  to  the  emperor  were  the  right  to  represent 
the  empire  in  dealing  with  foreign  nations,  to 
veto  measures  submitted  by  the  Imperial  Diet, 
to  appoint  and  regulate  the  Imperial  Aulic  Council 
and  fill  certain  seats  in  the  Imperial  Chamber, 
to  grant  the  privileges  de  non  evocando  and  de  non 
appellando,  to  grant  royal  fiefs — but  not  lapsed 
ones;  to  make  promotions  in  rank,  to  grant  titles 
of  nobility,  and  confer  university  degrees.2 

1  Prescott ;  Robertson 's  History  of  the  Reign  of  the  Emperor 
Charles  V,  i.,  211. 

2  Turner:  A  Sketch  of  the  Germanic  Constitution,  p.   126. 


36    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

One  of  the  most  important  documents  deter- 
mining the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  German 
people  as  they  existed  at  the  beginning  of  the 
sixteenth  century  was  the  Golden  Bull,1  issued 
by  Charles  IV  in  1356  as  a  fundamental  law  of 
the  empire.  It  determined  the  procedure  for 
the  election  and  coronation  of  the  emperor.  It 
designated  the  imperial  electors — seven  in  number 
— four  of  whom  were  secular  and  three  ecclesias- 
tical princes.  The  election  was  to  be  held  at 
Frankfort,  and  a  majority  of  votes  was  sufficient 
to  elect.  It  regulated  the  rights,  duties,  privileges, 
and  prerogatives  of  the  electors,  giving  them 
virtually  sovereign  rights  in  their  respective 
territories,  and  these  territories  could  not  be 
subdivided  or  alienated.  Each  elector,  in  his 
own  district,  was  given  the  so-called  regalia,  i.e., 
the  ownership  of  mines  of  gold,  silver,  and  other 
metals,  the  right  of  coinage,  the  taxes  on  the 
Jews,  and  the  tolls  which  had  been  previously 
assigned.  Conspiracy  against  the  electors  was 
declared  high  treason  to  be  punished  with  death 
by  the  sword,  as  well  as  confiscation  of  property. 
The  electors  were  granted  the  important  privileges 

1  Turner:  A  Sketch  of  the  Germanic  Constitution,  p.  98  et  seq. 
Henderson:  Select  Historical  Documents  of  the  Middle  Ages, 
pp.  174,  220.  Bryce:  The  Holy  Roman  Empire,  p.  243. 
Janssen:  History  of  the  German  People,  ii.,  122. 


The  Germany  of  Luther's  Day      37 

known  as  the  privilegium  de  non  evocando  and  the 
privilegium  de  non  appellando.  Under  the  former 
provision,  the  subjects  of  any  territory  belonging 
to  an  elector  might  be  tried  only  in  the  courts 
of  that  particular  elector's  territory,  and  cases  in 
such  courts  could  not  be  carried  to  any  other 
courts.  Under  the  latter  provision,  appeal  would 
not  lie  from  the  territorial  courts  to  the  imperial 
courts.  The  sole  exception  to  this  rule  was  in 
case  of  delay  in  or  denial  of  justice.  Another 
provision  in  this  historic  law  was  that  the  subjects 
of  princes,  seeking  to  gain  citizenship  in  the 
cities  solely  in  order  to  gain  protection  against 
their  former  lords  would  not  be  permitted  to  do 
so.  In  bonafide  cases  where  such  subjects  actually 
took  up  their  domicile  in  the  city  and  submitted 
to  their  due  burdens  and  municipal  obligations, 
they  would  not  be  disturbed. 1  In  case  of  vacancy 
on  the  throne,  the  count  palatine  and  the  Elector 
of  Saxony  were  to  administer  the  affairs  of  the 
empire.  It  was  further  provided  that  the  electors 
should  meet  annually  to  consider  the  affairs  of 
the  empire,  though  this  provision  was  not  carried 
out. 

For  a  hundred  years  prior  to  the  beginning  of 

1  In  spite  of  these  provisions,  and  despite  all  opposition, 
the  institution  of  the  Pfahlbiirger  continued.  Turner:  A 
Sketch  of  the  Germanic  Constitution,  p.  115. 


38    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

Luther's  public  life,  the  constitutional  and  political 
condition  of  Germany  was  determined  by  and 
dependent  on  the  periodical  Imperial  Diets,1 
which  exercised  rights  and  powers  not  always, 
if  ever,  accurately  defined.  They  declared  war 
and  peace,  levied  taxes,  and  exercised  a  certain 
supervision  over  the  general  affairs  of  the  empire. 
The  emperor  and  the  electors  appeared  in  person, 
as  well  as  the  other  princes,  the  counts  and  lords 
or  their  representatives,  and  the  deputies  from 
the  cities.  At  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  the  diet  was  made  up  of  three  colleges, — 
electors,  princes,  and  representatives  from  the 
cities.  The  lesser  nobility  and  the  knights  were 
not  represented.2  These  colleges  deliberated  sepa- 
rately. The  answer  was  drawn  up  by  the  Electoral 
College  and  presented  to  the  others  for  acceptance.3 
The  college  of  deputies  from  the  cities  could 
prevent  the  passage  of  a  measure,  but  in  this  age 
it  had  no  vote  on  the  final  determination  of  any 
matter,4 — the  two  upper  colleges  maintaining 
for  years  that  the  representatives  of  the  cities 
were  summoned  only  for  consultation.5  After 


»  Ranke:  History  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany,  i.,  vii. 

2  Bryce:  The  Holy  Roman  Empire ;  p.  367. 

3  Ranke:  History  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany,  i.,  97. 
*  Case:  European  Constitutional  History,  p.  118. 

s  Turner:  Sketch  of  the  Germanic  Constitution,  p.  132. 


The  Germany  of  Luther's  Day      39 

passage  by  these  two  colleges,  each  measure  went 
to  the  emperor  for  his  assent,  and  then  became 
law.  In  the  final  decision  of  any  question  before 
them,  the  colleges  of  electors  and  princes  sat 
and  voted  together  as  one  body.  The  unity  of 
the  nation  was  represented  by  these  Imperial 
Diets.  Their  consent  was  necessary  to  all  im- 
portant public  acts.  They  exercised  certain 
judicial,  as  well  as  deliberative  and  legislative 
powers.  Questions  came  before  them  affecting 
princes,  and  many  other  matters  submitted  to 
the  emperor  on  which  he  could  not  act  alone. 

The  various  states  of  the  empire,  in  like  manner, 
possessed  their  own  provincial  or  territorial  diets 
or  Landtage.  Their  membership  differed;  but 
it  was  composed,  in  the  larger  territories,  of 
prelates,  counts,  barons,  knights,  and  representa- 
tives of  the  cities.1  They  were  presided  over 
by  their  respective  princes,  and  each  prince  was, 
in  most  matters,  within  his  own  territory,  vir- 
tually supreme.  State  taxes  could  not  be  imposed 
without  the  consent  of  the  Landtage,  just  as  im- 
perial taxes  could  not  be  levied  without  the 
consent  of  the  Imperial  Diet.  The  Landtage 
legislated,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  prince, 
on  all  matters  connected  with  their  peoples  and 
territories,  excepting  only  those  belonging  to  the 

1  Turner:  Sketch  of  the  Germanic  Constitution,  p.  104. 


40    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

Imperial  Diet.  They  sometimes  decided  a  dis- 
puted succession  to  the  dukedom  or  other  post, 
but  such  a  matter  was  usually  considered  as 
belonging  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  emperor.1 
As  a  rule,  territorial  princes  presided  over  the 
law  courts  in  their  respective  jurisdictions. 

After  suffering  from  feuds,  private  wars,  and 
personal  disputes  for  as  much  as  a  thousand  years 
a  measure  known  as  the  Perpetual  National 
Peace  (Der  Ewige  Landfriede)  was  passed  by  the 
Imperial  Diet  held  by  Maximilian  in  the  city  of 
Worms  in  1495.  Notwithstanding  Germany's 
great  need  of  order,  security,  and  peace,  this  law 
was  passed  only  after  fourteen  weeks'  earnest 
discussion,  and  in  spite  of  the  opposition  of  many 
of  the  princes  and  nearly  all  the  nobility.  All 
such  disputes  thereafter  were  to  be  referred  to 
an  imperial  court,  permanently  established  at 
Frankfort,  to  be  composed  of  a  president  and 
sixteen  councillors  or  assessors.  This  was  the 
first  permanent  imperial  law  court  in  Germany, 
not  dependent  upon  the  movements  of  the  emperor 
from  city  to  city.  Maximilian  agreed  that  the 
statute  law  should  be  in  force  in  this  supreme  court 
and  that  no  more  than  the  regular  fees  should 
be  exacted.  More  than  this,  he  granted  to  the 
court  the  office  of  proclaiming  the  ban  of  the 

1  Case:  European  Constitutional  History,  pp.  120,  121. 


The  Germany  of  Luther's  Day      41 

empire  in  his  name.  He  yielded  to  the  estates 
the  appointments  to  this  bench,  except  in  the 
case  of  the  president  (Kammerrichter) ,  who  was 
to  be  nominated  by  the  emperor  himself.  The 
estates  appointed  the  assessors,  but  the  cities  were 
asked  to  propose  certain  candidates  for  this  office. 
A  committee  examined  and  decided  on  the  pre- 
sentations. By  this  legislation,  the  character  of 
the  imperial  court  entirely  changes.  Formerly  a 
monarchical  institution,  it  now  becomes  depend- 
ent, in  a  measure,  on  the  estates  of  the  realm.1 
In  civil  and  criminal  matters  it  was  given  original 
jurisdiction  in  cases  affecting  parties  holding 
immediately  of  the  emperor,  and  appellate  juris- 
diction in  private  cases  where  denial  of  or  delay 
in  justice  was  shown  in  the  territorial  courts, 
in  cases  appealed  from  courts  in  territories  not 
possessing  the  privilegium  de  non  appellando,  and 
in  disputes  between  different  states  of  the  empire, 
including  appeals  from  the  awards  of  arbitrators 
between  states.2 

At  this  same  Diet,  the  Emperor's  concession 
was  met  by  a  corresponding  concession  from  the 
estates. 3  They  allowed  the  grant  of  the  ' '  common 

»  Ranke:  History  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany,  i.,  122. 

2  Case:  European  Constitutional  History,  p.  123. 

3  Ranke:  History  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany,  i.,  122- 
124. 


42    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

penny, "* — a  tax  of  one  gulden  on  every  thousand, 
and  half  a  gulden  on  every  five  hundred.  Among 
persons  of  slender  means,  every  twenty-four 
above  fifteen  years  of  age,  without  exception, 
male  and  female,  ecclesiastic  and  layman,  were 
to  contribute  one  gulden.  The  more  wealthy 
classes  were  required  to  pay  according  to  their 
own  estimate  of  their  property.  The  people  were 
to  be  urged  by  the  priests  from  the  pulpit  to  give 
more  than  this  amount.  While  the  plan  was 
imperfect,  and  somewhat  confused  with  charity, 
it  was  nevertheless  a  systematic  attempt  at  a 
general  imperial  tax  for  the  purposes  of  peace  as 
well  as  war,  including  the  support  of  the  newly 
established  imperial  court  or  chamber.  The 
choice  of  the  imperial  treasurer  was  left  to  the 
estates.  This  official  was  to  turn  over  the  revenue 
received  from  these  taxes  to  the  Diet,  and  this 
body  was  given  exclusive  control  over  them. 
But  all  these  splendid  plans,  poorly  executed  at 
best,  were  short-lived. 
The  estates  claimed  the  right,  as  a  diet,  of 

»  The  common  penny,  a  combination  of  general  property 
and  poll  tax,  had  been  voted  by  the  Diet  at  long  intervals,  be- 
ginning with  the  year  1427,  but  it  had  never  been  systemat- 
ically collected,  and  furthermore  the  knights  had  absolutely 
refused  to  pay  it.  "It  was  voted  for  the  last  time  in  1495, 
and  soon  thereafter  abandoned  as  impracticable." — Turner: 
A  Sketch  of  the  Germanic  Constitution,  p.  112. 


The  Germany  of  Luther's  Day      43 

giving  or  withholding  their  consent  to  a  declaration 
of  war.  They  held  that  every  conquest  was  to 
accrue  to  the  empire.  Maximilian  rejected  as  an 
assault  upon  his  prerogatives  a  proposition  to 
establish  a  council  of  state, 1  with  power,  in  certain 
cases,  to  act  in  the  Emperor's  name.  The  Diet 
of  Augsburg,  in  1500,  however,  so  strongly  urged 
the  necessity  of  a  permanent  imperial  council  which 
might  relieve  the  Emperor  and  the  estates  from 
constant  meeting  of  diets,  and  to  whose  energy 
and  care  the  execution  of  the  Diet's  edicts  might 
be  entrusted,  that  Maximilian  was  forced  to 
submit.  The  council  of  administration  thus 
authorised  was  to  consist  of  representatives  of  the 
three  several  colleges  of  the  Diet.  The  Emperor 
was  given  the  right  to  preside  in  person  or  by 
his  representative.  To  this  council  were  given 
most  important  powers,  including  everything 
regarding  the  administration  of  justice,  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  public  peace,  protection  of  the 
country  against  aggression  or  assault,  and  the 
regulation  of  affairs  both  domestic  and  foreign. 
It  was  empowered  "to  originate,  to  discuss,  to 
determine."  Having  this  authority,  it  was  also 
given  the  suggestive  title  Reichsregiment  (govern- 
ment of  the  empire,  or  council  of  administra- 

1  Reichsregiment. 


44    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

tion) .  *  This  institution,  however,  proved  unsatis- 
factory to  the  Emperor  and  to  the  estates  alike, 
though  for  different  reasons,  and  continued  in  exist- 
ence but  two  years.2  We  are  told  that  already  in 
1502  this  council  and  the  assessors  of  the  imperial 
chamber  dispersed  to  their  homes,  neither  having 
been  paid  their  salaries,  nor  permitted  to  exercise 
their  functions.  Maximilian  then  proceeded  to 
set  up  and  preside  over  an  imperial  court  of 
justice  similar  to  the  one  his  father  had  maintained, 
with  assessors  arbitrarily  appointed.3  To  this 
court  he  referred  matters  pertaining  to  his  own 
territories  and  other  cases  coming  before  him  as 
Emperor.  In  addition  to  its  exclusive  jurisdiction 
in  feudal  and  certain  other  cases,  this  court, 
designed  to  strengthen  the  imperial  prerogative, 
was  given  appellate  jurisdiction  co-ordinate  with 
the  imperial  chamber.4  The  estates  earnestly 
and  resolutely  opposed  Maximilian's  plans  to 
extend  his  imperial  prerogatives  in  this  and  other 
ways. 

The  early  years  of  the  sixteenth  century  marked 

1  Ranke:  History  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany,  i.,   155, 
156.     This  council  of  administration  was  again  instituted 
in  1521,  but  continued  only  a  decade. 

2  Mr.  James  Bryce  says  that  Maximilian  did  his  best  to 
ensure  its  failure. — Holy  Roman  Empire,  p.  366. 

3  Ranke:  History  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany,  i.,  159,  160. 

4  Case:  European  Constitutional  History,  p.  123. 


The  Germany  of  Luther's  Day      45 

many  a  contest  between  the  Emperor  and  the 
estates.  Maximilian  was  in  urgent  need  of  war 
subsidies,  but  the  Diet  held  at  Worms  in  1509 
declared  its  members  were  neither  able  nor  bound 
to  support  him  in  his  war  beyond  the  imperial 
territory.  They  unanimously  declared  themselves 
ready  to  consider  any  propositions  presented  to 
them  concerning  law  and  order,  the  administration 
of  justice,  or  coinage.  They  recognised  the  needs 
of  their  own  people  and  their  own  country  as  of 
prime  importance,  demanding  first  consideration. 
They  sought  a  more  clearly  defined  representative 
government  that  would  maintain  the  dignity, 
and  yet  limit  the  arbitrary  power,  of  the  emperor. 
They  endeavoured  to  introduce  system  and  uni- 
formity into  the  military,  financial,  and  legal 
administration  of  the  empire,  even  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  authority  and  prerogatives  of  the 
territorial  rulers.1 

Many  earnest  attempts  were  thus  made  to 
establish  a  stronger,  more  systematic,  more  uni- 
form, and  more  representative  form  of  government, 
but  they  invariably  failed,  in  part,  if  not  in 
whole.  The  proposed  reforms  of  1495,  reluctantly 
assented  to  by  Maximilian,  suffered  that  fate. 
Those  actually  established  were  permitted  to 
wither.  The  Imperial  Chamber  and  Aulic  Council 

1  Ranke:  History  of  'the  Reformation  in  Germany,  i.,  203-206. 


46    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

were  both  allowed  to  fall  into  disuse.  The  only 
reforms  of  permanent  value  were  the  Landfriede,  or 
edict  of  perpetual  national  peace,  and  the  division 
of  the  empire  into  circles  or  districts,  both  of 
which  served,  in  a  measure,  as  a  counterpoise 
to  the  powers  of  the  princes.  This  was  all  that 
remained  of  the  various  projects  of  reform  from 
which  so  much  had  been  fondly  expected. 

"So  ended,"  says  Mr.  Bryce,1  "the  first  great 
effort  for  German  unity,"  an  effort  to  estab- 
lish a  body  which  would  resemble  far  more  nearly 
the  senate  of  a  federal  state  than  the  administra- 
tive council  which  surrounds  a  monarch.  These 
attempts  to  secure  permanent  imperial  officials 
and  uniform  administration  throughout  the  empire, 
to  completely  check  private  wars,  and  to  put 
into  satisfactory  operation  the  proposed  Imperial 
Chamber,  however,  were  unsuccessful.  The  vari- 
ous princes  and  established  powers  framed  new 
codes  of  law,  introduced  new  administrative 
systems,  and  ruled  more  despotically  than  ever. 

Looking  now  at  the  economic  conditions  in 
existence  at  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
it  will  be  remembered  that  the  printing  press 
and  the  use  of  movable  type  were  invented  half 
a  century  before  this,  and  printing  establish- 
ments were  now  scattered  not  only  all  over  Ger- 

»  Bryce:  The  Holy  Roman  Empire,  p.  367. 


UNIVERSITY 

OF 


The  Germany  of  Luther's  Day      47 

many  but  in  all  civilised  Europe.  "We  Ger- 
mans," wrote  Wimpheling  in  1507,  "practically 
control  the  whole  intellectual  market  of  civilised 
Europe;  the  books,  however,  which  we  bring  to 
this  market  are  for  the  most  part  high-class  works 
tending  to  the  honour  of  God,  the  salvation  of 
souls,  and  the  civilisation  of  the  people." 

In  certain  parts  of  Germany,  especially  along 
the  middle  Rhine,  there  were  village*  schools;  in 
some  cases,  girls'  schools.  The  larger  towns,  in 
addition  to  the  elementary  grades,  had  higher 
schools.  All  these  schools  were  closely  connected 
with  the  church  and  were  under  the  supervision 
of  the  clergy.  They  were  supported  by  the  church, 
by  fees,  and  by  legacies.  The  home  and  the 
school  alike  were  to  co-operate  with  the  church 
in  the  instruction  of  God's  word  and  the  teachings 
of  the  church.  Aside  from  the  teaching  given 
under  and  for  the  church, — generally  in  the  parish 
schools, — there  was  no  such  thing  as  popular 
or  compulsory  education.1  Taxes  or  rates  for 
the  support  of  schools  were  then  unknown.2 
Special  schools  were  provided  for  the  nobility. 

The  historian  Janssen  asserts  that  at  no  other 
period  of  German  history  have  the  universities 

1  Janssen :  History  of  the  German  People  at  the  Close  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  i.,  25  et  seq. 

2  Ibid,,  i.,  81. 


48    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

ever  had  such  enthusiastic  and  self-sacrificing 
support  lavished  on  them  as  in  the  fifty  years 
from  1460  to  1510,  and  that  at  no  other  period 
have  they  ever  made  such  tremendous  strides 
in  the  way  of  progress.  They  were  designed  to 
be  not  only  the  highest  schools  of  secular,  but 
also  of  religious,  learning.  "They  were  to  serve 
for  the  protection  and  propagation  of  the  faith." 
Hence  the  charters  of  all  the  earlier  and  most 
of  the  later  ones  were  granted  by  the  pope. 
"From  the  nature  of  their  constitution  the  uni- 
versities were  recognised  as  ecclesiastical  author- 
ities. Their  whole  organisation  was  permeated 
with  the  clerical  spirit."1 

At  the  close  of  the  Middle  Ages  most  of  the 
soil  belonged  to  the  princes,  the  feudal  lords,  and 
the  cities,  with  a  very  large  share  in  the  possession 
of  the  church.  Farmers  and  house  tenants, 
as  they  were  called,  paid  rent  or  rendered  stipu- 
lated service  for  their  holdings.  Under  the 
Christian  German  law,  there  was  no  serfdom  in 
that  country  in  the  fifteenth  century — except 
among  the  peasants  of  Pomerania.  The  church 
proclaimed  the  old  Swabian  common  law  that 
no  man  belongs  to  another.  The  tenant,  however, 
was  bound  to  the  land  and  could  not  leave  his 

i  Janssen :  History  of  the  German  People  at  the  Close  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  i.,  87. 


The  Germany  of  Luther's  Day      49 

holdings  without  the  consent  of  the  lord.  Every 
man  coming  into  such  a  possession  was  required 
to  bind  himself  with  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the 
lord  of  the  soil.  Day  labourers  and  servants 
were  better  off  than  the  peasants. 

There  was  a  marked  change,  however,  in  eco- 
nomic conditions,  at  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  and 
the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century.  A  large 
number  of  crop  failures,  the  development  of 
domestic  and  foreign  commerce,  the  discovery 
of  America  and  her  gold,  and  the  growing  trade 
with  the  East  Indies  all  contributed  to  a  steady 
rise  in  the  cost  of  living.  The  labourer's  wage 
increased  but  little,  sometimes  it  was  materially 
decreased;  while  the  cost  of  living  rose  by  leaps 
and  bounds.  In  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth 
century  the  workmen  found  that  ''the  price  of 
rye  rose  from  six  to  twenty-four  groschen  per 
bushel,  the  price  of  a  sheep  from  four  to  eighteen 
groschen,  and  so  on  with  the  other  necessaries."1 
Indeed  the  wages  of  the  sixteenth  century  "were 
only  half  what  they  had  been  between  1450  and 
1500," — a  condition  of  things  which  likewise 
existed  in  England,  France,  and  Italy.  The 
position  of  the  country  peasant  at  the  beginning 
of  the  sixteenth  century  has  been  described  as  one 

»  Janssen:  History  of  the  German  People  at  the  Close  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  i.,  349. 


50    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

of  "extreme  wretchedness."  His  land  was  mort- 
gaged at  high  rates  of  interest,  and  the  ensuing 
harvest  was  ofttimes  pledged  on  account  of  a 
loan.  Little,  if  anything,  had  been  done,  or  even 
attempted,  by  the  Imperial  Diet  to  guard  the 
agricultural  population  from  the  absolute  tyranny 
of  the  landed  nobility.  Repeated  efforts  of  the 
peasantry  to  better  their  condition  invariably 
ended  in  crushing  defeat  and  harsher  treatment 
than  before.  The  disaffection  and  dissatisfaction 
of  peasants  and  labourers  became  alarming. 
When  the  Imperial  Diet  met  at  Mayence  in  1517, 
complaints  were  heard  on  every  side  as  to  the 
inefficiency  of  the  imperial  court,  the  general  dis- 
regard of  law,  the  insecurity  of  the  public  roads, 
and  the  oppression  of  the  helpless  poor.  The 
estates  demanded  a  remedy  of  the  Emperor.1 

The  progress  of  Germany  at  the  close  of  the 
Middle  Ages  was  much  more  marked  in  the  field 
of  manufacture  than  in  agriculture.  Industrial 
and  commercial  development  was  rapid.  There 
were  prosperous  guilds  of  the  various  trades  regu- 
lating many  matters  pertaining  not  only  to  their 
work  itself,  but  also  concerning  their  personal 
rights  and  privileges.  The  guild  was  subject  to 
the  town  council  and  authorities  and  was  obliged 

1  Lewis :  A  History  of  Germany  from  the  Earliest  Times , 
p.  310. 


The  Germany  of  Luther's  Day      51 

to  submit  its  ordinances  and  regulations  for  ap- 
proval. The  guild  controlled  the  purchase  of  the 
raw  material  for  the  work  of  its  members.  It 
regulated  hours  of  labour,  wages,  conditions  and 
amount  of  work,  and  the  number  of  apprentices, 
in  order  to  equalise  profits,  for  it  maintained  that 
labour  rights  belonged  to  the  organisation  first 
and  to  the  individual  only  as  a  member  of  that 
body.  Prices,  and  times  and  places  of  selling  the 
products  of  their  labour  were  likewise  fixed.  There 
were  inspectors  of  food  stuffs,  such  as  bread,  flour, 
and  fish,  and  also  of  wine  and  beer.  The  mining 
industries  of  the  country  were  of  great  importance 
and  yielded  large  returns. 

Many  documents  of  that  age  bear  testimony  to 
the  luxury  and  extravagance  in  dress  and  food 
of  all  classes, — princes,  merchants,  artisans,  and 
peasants  alike.  Germany's  foreign  commerce 
was  extending  all  over  Western  and  Southern 
Europe,  and  to  America  and  the  East  Indies  as 
well.  Books  were  written  and  sermons  preached 
against  the  spirit  of  the  age  in  which  no  one  was 
contented  with  his  lot,  and  even  the  rustic  aped 
the  nobleman. 

As  the  privilege  of  coinage  had  been  accorded 
for  centuries  to  small  principalities  and  free  cities, 
and  Germany  was  flooded  with  a  great  number  of 
different  coinages,  money-changers  were  a  neces- 


52    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

sity;  but  their  work  extended  to  loaning  money, 
which  was  done  in  most  cases  at  a  high  rate  of 
interest. 

Trading  companies  agreed  upon  the  mutual 
exploitation  and  control  of  various  lines  of  trade 
or  business  and  divided  the  profits.  Christopher 
Kuppner,  Professor  of  Jurisprudence  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Leipsic,  in  his  work  on  usury,  in  the 
year  1508,  urges  the  magistrates  to  proceed  against 
"those  wealthy  merchants  or  trading  companies 
who  have  agents  at  Vienna,  in  Russia,  and  in 
Prussia,  and  who,  when  they  learn  that  any  particu- 
lar article  of  trade  has  gone  up  in  price,  whether 
it  be  saffron,  pepper,  corn,  or  what  not,  instantly 
buy  it  all  up  to  sell  it  again  at  whatever  price 
they  please.  .  .  .  Princes  and  rulers  should  not 
tolerate  such  dealings,  and  should  be  more  careful 
for  the  general  good  of  their  subjects."1  The 
Imperial  Diet  at  Cologne,  in  1512,  took  measures 
against  the  great  trading  companies  whose  object 

was  to  control  the  market  to  their  own  profit  and 

the  injury  of  the  public;  but  the  empire  could  not 
control  the  avaricious  spirit.  Furthermore,  too, 
many  councillors-  and  princes  were  themselves 
members  of  such  companies  or  received  considera- 
tions from  them;  and  these  combinations  and 

1  Janssen :  History  of  the  German  People  at  the  Close  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  ii.,  82. 


The  Germany  of  Luther's  Day      53 

monopolies  only  increased  in  number  and  in  power. 
Their  profits  were  enormous.  Trade  and  com- 
merce developed  an  excessive  greed  for  gain,  and 
fostered  extravagance  in  life. 

Another  factor  of  prime  importance  in  the 
changes  of  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries 
must  be  considered, — the  introduction  into  Ger- 
many of  the  Roman  law.  The  Christian  German 
theory  acknowledged  justice  as  proceeding  from 
God.  Each  province,  each  town,  each  village, 
and  each  calling  or  class  of  people  had  its  own 
rights,  privileges,  and  laws.  There  thus  existed 
an  endless  confusion  of  laws  and  precedents  dif- 
fering in  detail  but  all  based  on  the  same  principles 
and  conceptions  of  law.  Every  man  was  entitled! 
to  be  judged  by  his  peers — men  of  his  own  class. 
There  was  a  public  hearing  and  open  discussion, 
with  all  parties  interested  present.  There  were  no 
legal  practitioners  interested  in  cultivating  or 
prolonging  cases.  Every  man,  though  belonging 
to  the  poorest  and  the  lowest  class,  was  sure  of 
fair  and  speedy  trial  in  the  open. 

But  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  and  the  opening  of 
the  sixteenth  centuries  saw  the  gradual  and  steady 
introduction  into  the  country  of  the  Roman  code 
of  law,  which  clothed  the  ruler  with  unlimited 
power  and  supreme  authority.  It  did  not  recog- 
nise the  traditional  rights  of  the  German  people. 


54    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

It  was  encouraged  by  the  princes,  taught  in  the 
universities,  and  cultivated  by  the  courts.  Other 
influences  that  favoured  its  introduction  were 
those  of  the  empire,  the  church,  the  one  common 
commercial  language — Latin, — and  the  desirability, 
if  not  necessity,  of  a  uniform  jurisprudence  and  a 
learned  bench.  Its  reception  in  the  civil  courts 
was  not  yet  final  or  complete,  but  steadily  advanc- 
ing; and  the  administration  of  justice  gradually 
fell  into  the  hands  of  men  who  knew  nothing  of  the 
German  laws,  rights,  and  precedents,  and  did  not 
want  to  know.  The  German  people  rebelled  in 
vain  against  the  imposition  of  the  new  law.  The 
striking  contrast  between  the  old  and  the  new  is 
shown  by  the  historian  Johannes  Janssen  in  lan- 
guage that  presents  the  introduction  into  Germany 
of  the  Roman  code  as  one  of  the  leading  causes  of 
the  discontent  that  is  found  at  this  period,  especi- 
ally among  the  peasants  and  the  lower  classes. 
He  says1 : 

Notwithstanding  the  evils  of  private  warfare,  the 
peasants  enjoyed  protection  of  their  rights  under  the 
Christian  German  law,  and  led  happy  lives.  They 
lived  under  the  regulations  of  their  corporations,  paid 
moderate  taxes  and  services,  and  settled  their  griev- 
ances according  to  their  traditionary  customs  in  their 

»  Janssen :  History  of  the  German  People  at  the  Close  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  ii.,  182-185. 


The  Germany  of  Luther's  Day       55 

own  tribunals.  Just  as  the  state's  representatives  had 
a  voice  in  the  imperial  government,  the  district  repre- 
sentatives in  the  territorial  management,  so  the 
peasants  on  an  estate  had  regular  meetings  to  settle 
matters  in  the  interest  of  the  property.  The  fully 
accredited  members  at  those  meetings  were,  so  to 
speak,  the  manor-government.  The  taxes,  which 
were  moderate,  were  generally  ground  rents  or 
charges  of  fiefdom. 

The  introduction  of  the  Roman  code  entirely 
changed  this  state  of  things,  and  the  exclusion  of  the 
peasants  from  the  tribunals  resulted  in  the  ancient 
legal  customs  being  entirely  set  aside.  The  old 
customs  and  unwritten  law  lost  their  force,  nothing 
being  held  as  valid  that  could  not  be  sustained  by 
documentary  evidence.  The  being  deprived  of  the 
protecting  right  to  be  tried  by  their  peers  was  a 
serious  loss  to  the  tenants  and  freeholders. 

The  new  code  was  in  no  way  applicable  to  the 
peasant  conditions  which  had  gradually  developed 
in  Germany.  Under  the  Caesars  there  were  no  free 
peasants,  no  life-tenants,  or  tenants  in  the  German 
acceptation  of  the  word;  therefore  the  Roman  code 
did  not  meet  the  necessities  of  such  a  social  condition. 
The  Roman  Empire  recognised  only  autocrats  and 
slaves;  so  the  new  jurists,  who  judged  everything 
according  to  the  Justinian  code,  destroyed  with 
merciless  hand  all  that  was  so  dearly  connected  with 
German  traditions,  and  built  up  the  new  code  on  the 
ruins  of  the  ancient  order.  They  looked  on  all  German 


56    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

leases  as  limited,  and  applied  the  Roman  slave  law 
to  the  German  manor  rights.  They  invested  avari- 
cious and  ambitious  princes  and  landlords  with  legal 
authority  not  only  to  deprive  the  peasants  of  their 
communal  rights,  but  to  ev*ct  them  from  their  life- 
lease  possessions  and  to  increase  their  taxes.  .  .  . 

The  introduction  of  the  Roman  code  created  un- 
speakable confusion  in  all  grades  of  society.  Exactly 
in  proportion  as  it  grew  and  prevailed  did  national 
rights  and  national  freedom  go  to  the  wall.  As  in 
ancient  Rome,  the  law  became  the  means  by  which 
the  state  arrogated  to  itself  supreme  power,  ignoring 
all  obstacles. 

The  German  prince  or  ruler  was  to  be  a  princeps, 
in  the  ancient  Roman  sense.  That  is  to  say,  the 
judgment  and  the  will  of  the  sovereign  determined 
and  regulated  legislation  and  administration, — 
whether  of  justice,  military,  finance,  police,  com- 
merce, or  other  branch  or  field  of  the  government 
service. 

The  seething  discontent  engendered  by  the 
foreign  code  is  summed  up  by  Janssen  in  these 
words 1 : 

Nowhere  in  the  Roman  legal  system  is  labour  looked 
upon  as  the  basis  of  property ;  the  value  of  free  labour, 
the  subjection  of  the  individual  to  the  law  of  daily 

i  Janssen :  History  of  the  German  People  at  the  Close  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  ii.,  104,  105. 


The  Germany  of  Luther's  Day      57 

work,  were  quite  ignored  by  its  compilers,  and  hence 
there  is  never  any  question  of  free  organisation  of 
labour  and  of  a  just  distribution  of  the  produce  of 
labour.  Laborious  toil  was  the  lot  of  down-trodden 
slaves,  while  the  powerful  classes  possessed  and 
enjoyed. 

The  more  deeply  this  pagan  doctrine  rooted  itself 
in  the  German  soil  in  the  course  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  the  greater  became  the  abuse  of  property, 
the  deterioration  of  the  working  classes,  and  the 
retrogression  of  the  political  standing  of  the  nation. 
Not  commercial  and  industrial  life  only,  but  the 
development  of  the  peasant  conditions  also,  was 
powerfully  disturbed. 

But  the  pernicious  workings  of  the  new  legal  system 
spread  far  beyond  the  domain  of  industrial  economy. 
Its  poison  entered  into  the  whole  sphere  of  ecclesi- 
astical and  political  life.  Everywhere  favouring  the 
might  of  property,  and  the  subjection  of  the  nation 
by  princely  absolutism,  it  undermined  the  foundations 
of  German  law  and  of  the  German  constitution. 

It  was  at  this  time  that  the  imperial  electors 
chose  the  young  Charles  V  as  Emperor,  in  1519. 
As  a  condition  precedent  to  his  election,  his  am- 
bassadors were  required  by  the  electors  to  sign 
capitulations,1  guaranteeing  to  the  estates  their 
vested  rights,  and  the  Emperor  himself  was 
required  to  make  oath  to  them  before  his  corona- 

»  Schoenfeld :  Ranke's  Kaiserwahl  Karl's  V,  p.  84. 


58    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

tion.  In  them  he  pledged  himself  to  uphold  the 
established  constitution  and  to  protect  the  estates 
in  their  vested  rights  and  privileges.  Without 
the  consent  of  the  electors,  he  would  not  involve 
the  empire  in  any  alliance  or  war,  part  with  any 
of  the  possessions  of  the  empire,  levy  any  taxes 
upon  the  estates,  impose  any  new  tolls  or  increase 
any  already  existing,  hold  imperial  diets,  or 
enlist  foreign  troops  in  the  imperial  service.  He 
further  pledged  himself  to  appoint  none  but 
natives  of  Germany  to  imperial  office,  to  use  only 
the  German  and  Latin  languages  in  the  affairs  of 
state,  to  maintain  peace  and  order,  to  use  the 
revenues  of  the  crown  for  the  public  good,  to 
re-establish  the  imperial  regency  or  council  of 
administration  (Reichsregiment),  and  to  reside 
as  much  as  possible  within  the  bounds  of  the  em- 
pire. The  estates  were  not  to  be  subject  to  any 
jurisdiction  beyond  the  bounds  of  the  empire. 
Great  monopolies  like  that  of  the  Fuggers  and 
the  aggressions  of  the  court  of  Rome  were  to  be 
restrained,  and  no  one  should  be  placed  under 
the  ban  of  the  empire  without  previous  formal 
trial. 

In  the  interim,  between  the  election  and  the 
coronation  of  Charles  V  as  Emperor,  an  appeal 
was  made  to  the  nobility  of  Germany  that  had 
as  important  and  far-reaching  political  influence 


The  Germany  of  Luther's  Day      59 

in  many  ways  as  the  ninety-five  theses  nailed  on 
the  door  of  the  Castle  Church  at  Wittenberg, 
October  31,  1517,  had  in  the  religious  realm. 
The  author  of  both  these  documents  was  the 
monk,  the  preacher,  the  university  professor,  and 
the  reformer,  Martin  Luther;  and  to  his  teachings 
on  the  subject  of  civil  government  we  now  turn 
our  attention.  Just  at  the  time  when  he  appeals 
from  the  Pope  to  a  general  council,  and  again 
to  his  countrymen  at  large,  at  the  time  when  he 
stands  alone  before  representatives  of  church  and 
state  combined  against  him,  at  the  time  when 
excommunication  from  the  Roman  Church  has 
been  followed  by  the  ban  of  the  empire,  all  politi- 
cal and  administrative  affairs  in  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire  of  the  German  nation  were  in  confusion. 
Ranke  thus  describes  the  state  of  affairs: 

As  yet  everything  was  wavering  and  unsettled; 
no  form  had  been  found  for  the  government;  no 
system  of  finance,  no  military  organisation  perfected ; 
there  was  no  supreme  court  of  justice;  the  Public 
Peace  was  not  maintained.  All  classes  in  the  empire 
were  at  strife — princes  and  nobles,  knights  and  citi- 
zens, priests  and  laymen;  above  all,  the  higher  classes 
and  the  peasants.  In  addition  to  all  these  sources 
of  confusion,  arose  the  religious  movement,  embracing 
every  region  of  mind,  originating  in  the  depths  of 
the  national  consciousness,  and  now  bursting  forth  in 


60    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

open  revolt  against  the  head  of  the  hierarchy.  The 
existing  generation  was  powerful,  intelligent,  inven- 
tive, earnest,  thoughtful.  It  had  a  presentiment 
that  it  contained  the  germ  of  a  great  moral  and 
social  revolution.1 

»  Ranke:  History  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany,  i.,  496. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE    NATURE,     NECESSITY,     AND     ORIGIN     OF    THE 
STATE 

THE  state  has  been  defined  as  "a  community 
of  considerable  size,  occupying  a  clearly 
defined  territory,  owning  direct  and  complete 
allegiance  to  a  common  authority,  and  invested 
with  a  personality  which  enables  it  to  act  more 
or  less  as  an  individual."1  Another  defines  it, 
in  its  wider  significance,  as  "a  body  of  human 
beings  deriving  its  corporate  unity  from  the  fact 
that  its  members  acknowledge  permanent  obedi- 
ence to  the  same  government,  which  represents 
the  society  in  any  transactions  that  it  may  carry 
on  as  a  body  with  other  political  societies."2 
The  state,  says  another,  is  "a  combination  or 
association  of  men  in  the  form  of  government  and 
governed,  on  a  definite  territory,  united  together 
into  a  moral  organised  masculine  personality," 
or,  more  briefly,  "the  politically  organised  national 

»  Jenks:  Law  and  Politics  in  the  Middle  Ages,  p.  68. 
2  Sidgwick:  Elements  of  Politics,  p.  221. 
61 


62    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

person  of  a  definite  country. ' ' *  ' ' The  civil  consti- 
tution," according  to  Kant's  definition,  "is  a 
relation  of  free  men  who  live  under  coercive  laws, 
without  prejudicing  their  liberty  otherwise  in 
the  whole  of  their  connection  with  others."2 
To  Watt,  "The  state  seems  to  indicate  that  exter- 
nal form  which  society  assumes  in  consequence  of 
its  organisation;  it  is  the  body  of  society,  the 
political  manifestation  of  its  growth."3  Several 
other  writers  on  the  subject  have  presented  these 
briefer  and  no  less  satisfactory  definitions:  "A 
state  is  a  people  organised  for  law  within  a  defi- 
nite territory"4;  "a  society  organised  and  inde- 
pendent"5; and  "a  particular  portion  of  mankind 
viewed  as  an  organised  unit."6  An  analysis  of 
these  definitions  of  the  state  emphasises  these 
three  essentials:  a  territory,  however  small;  a 
number  of  people,  however  few;  and  a  vested 
common  authority,  sovereign  and  independent. 
Political  writers  recognise  a  marked  distinction 

Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  23. 

Kant:  Principles  of  Politics,  p.  35. 

Watt:  Outline  of  Legal  Philosophy,  p.  56. 

The  modern  definition  of  the  state.  Wilson:  The  State, 
p.  8. 

M'Kechnie:  The  State  and  the  Individual,  p.  47. 

Definition  of  the  state  from  the  standpoint  of  the  concept. 
Burgess:  Political  Science  and  Comparative,  Constitutional 
Law,  i.,  50. 


The  Nature  and  Origin  of  the  State    63 

between  state  and  government.  The  state  is  the 
sovereign  power  residing  back  of  any  and  all  ad- 
ministrations or  forms  of  government.  The  gov- 
ernment may  change  again  and  again  in  name,  in 
form,  in  fact,  and  yet  the  state  itself  continue 
unchanged.  The  government  is  the  state's  ma- 
chinery or  organisation,  through  which  its  pur- 
poses are  formulated  and  executed.1  The  state  is 
larger,  deeper,  stronger,  and  more  abiding  than 
any  particular  form,  phase,  or  period  of  its  govern- 
ment. "The  distinction  is  natural  and  needful. 
It  is  suggestively  analogous  to  that  between 
religion  and  the  church;  between  art  and  pro- 
ductions which  are  termed  artistic;  between 
science  and  results  in  which  science  is  said  to  be 
expressed;  between  righteous  authority  and  con- 
trolling power;  between  justice  and  statute  law."2 
If  the  throne  represent  the  government,  the  state 
may  be  termed  the  power  behind  the  throne.  It 
must  be  kept  clearly  in  mind  that  the  state  is 
more  than  the  government,  even  when  the  latter 
term  is  stretched  to  its  limit  to  include  the 
legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  machinery  and 
authority  of  a  country.3  The  proper  relation 

1  Willoughby:  An  Examination  of  the  Nature  of  the  State, 
p.  8. 

2  Chamberlain :  The  State,  its  Nature,  Origin,  and  Functions, 
p.  2. 

3  M'Kechnie:  The  State  and  the  Individual,  p.  49. 


64    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

between  state  and  government  is  that  of  master 
and  servant. 

That  the  state  is  natural  and  necessary  to  man 
was  recognised  already  by  Aristotle.  He  declared : 

And  he  who  by  nature  and  not  by  mere  accident 
is  without  a  state  is  either  above  humanity,  or  below 
it;  he  is  the  "tribeless,  lawless,  hearthless  one"  whom 
Homer  denounces.  .  .  .  The  proof  that  the  state 
is  a  creation  of  nature  and  prior  to  the  individual 
is  that  the  individual,  when  isolated,  is  not  self- 
sufficing  ;  and  therefore  he  is  like  a  part  in  relation  to 
the  whole.  But  he  who  is  unable  to  live  in  society,  or 
who  has  no  need  because  he  is  sufficient  for  himself, 
must  be  either  a  beast  or  a  god:  he  is  no  part  of  a 
state.  A  social  instinct  is  implanted  in  all  men  by 
nature,  and  yet  he  who  first  founded  the  state  was 
the  greatest  of  benefactors.  For  man,  when  perfected, 
is  the  best  of  animals,  but,  when  separated  from  law 
and  justice,  he  is  the  worst  of  all ;  since  armed  injustice 
is  the  more  dangerous,  and  he  is  equipped  at  birth 
with  the  arms  of  intelligence  and  with  moral  qualities 
which  he  may  use  for  the  worst  ends.  Wherefore,  if 
he  have  not  virtue,  he  is  the  most  unholy  and  the 
most  savage  of  animals,  and  the  most  full  of  lust  and 
gluttony.  But  justice  is  the  bond  of  men  in  states, 
and  the  administration  of  justice,  which  is  the  deter- 
mination of  what  is  just,  is  the  principle  of  order  in 
political  society.1 

*  Aristotle:  Politics,  i.,  2,  pp.  28-30.  See  Schiller's  Das 
Eleusische  Fest. 


The  Nature  and  Origin  of  the  State    65 

Volumes  have  been  written  on  speculations 
and  theories  concerning  the  origin  of  the  state. 
Polybius  assigned  its  origin  to  man's  instinct.1 
Cicero  discovered  it  in  man's  love  of  society, 
and  not  in  his  weakness.2  St.  Augustine  adopted 
the  theory  of  Cicero  and  Plato,  that  man  was 
led  by  his  own  nature  to  enter  society,  but  added 
to  that  the  view  that  he  entered  society  to  have 
peace,  and  that  there  was  a  general  agreement 
(pactum)  of  human  society  to  obey  kings.  As 
Martin  Luther  was  an  Augustinian  monk  and 
made  the  writings  of  St.  Augustine  his  special 
study  for  many  years,  and  imbibed  and  reflected 
his  teachings  in  many  matters,  it  is  interesting 
to  observe  that  here  in  St.  Augustine  is  to  be  found 
the  germ  of  the  idea  that  government  rests  on 
the  consent  of  the  governed,  and  that  the  govern- 
ment is  to  render  service  to  the  governed.  In 
the  natural  order  of  the  world,  God  arranged  for 
man  to  rule  only  animals.  One  man  was  not  to 
be  ruled  by  another.3  Nicholas  of  Cusa,  a  thou- 
sand years  later,  echoed  the  same  principle,  though 
in  stronger,  clearer  language.  AH  men,  he  main- 

1  Polybius:  Histories,  vi.,  4. 

2  Sullivan:    The  Antecedents    of  the    Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, i.,  72. 

3  St.  Augustine:  Confessiones,   book  in.;   De  Civitate  Dei, 
book  xix. ;  Sermons  in  Ante-Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers, 
vi.,  302. 


66    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

tained,  are  by  nature  free,  and  therefore  all 
government  springs  from  and  rests  on  the  consent 
of  the  governed.1  Thomas  Aquinas  held  that  the 
state  is  due  to  man's  social  instinct,  and  is  not 
a  consequence  of  his  fall  from  primitive  bliss. 
Society  requires  control.  Without  the  latter,  the 
former  would  soon  fall  to  pieces.2 

Sir  Henry  Maine  was  the  leading  advocate  of 
the  patriarchal  theory,  i.e.,  that  society  originated 
in  separate  families,  held  together  by  the  authority 
and  protection  of  the  oldest  valid  male  ascendant.3 

Hooker  held  that  the  natural  laws  "bind  men 
absolutely,  even  as  they  are  men,  although  they 
have  never  any  settled  fellowship,  never  any 
solemn  agreement  amongst  themselves  what  to 
do  or  not  to  do.  But  forasmuch  as  we  are  not 
by  ourselves  sufficient  to  furnish  ourselves  with 
competent  store  of  things  needful  for  such  a 
life  as  our  nature  doth  desire,  a  life  fit  for  the 
dignity  of  man,  therefore  to  supply  those  defects 
and  imperfections  which  are  in  us  living  single 
and  solely  by  ourselves,  we  are  naturally  induced 
to  seek  communion  and  fellowship  with  others. 

»  De  Concordantia  Catholica,  ii.,  12,  14. 

2  Aquinas:  Summa  Theologia,  i.,  xcvi. ;  De  Regimine  Princi- 
pum,  i.,  i.     Baumann :  Die  Staatslehre  des  Thomas  von  Aquino, 
p.  1 08.     Bullowa:  The  History  of  the  Theory  of  Sovereignty , 
p.  19. 

3  Maine:  Ancient  Law,  p.  118. 


The  Nature  and  Origin  of  the  State    67 

This  was  the  cause  of  men  uniting  themselves  at 
the  first  in  political  societies."1 

The  same  writer  says  further:  "All  public 
regiment  of  what  kind  soever  seemeth  evidently 
to  have  risen  from  deliberate  advice,  consultation 
and  composition  between  men,  judging  it  conve- 
nient and  behovef ul ;  there  being  no  impossibility 
in  nature  considered  by  itself,  but  that  men  might 
have  lived  without  any  public  regiment."2 

The  so-called  contract  theory,  in  its  day,  had 
famous  supporters  and  exercised  a  wide  influence 
in  political  affairs.  It  assumes  at  the  outset  that 
there  exists,  in  addition  to  and  above  all  human 
law,  a  law  of  nature  into  which  men  were  born. 
That  law  could  not  control  individual  passion  and 
greed  and  pride,  nor  did  it  have  visible  organisation 
or  coercive  power.  Indeed  it  developed  inevitably 
into  an  intolerable  state  of  war,  with  every  man's 
hand  against  every  other  man.3  Hobbes  advo- 
cated this  contract  theory  of  the  origin  of  civil 
government,  and  asserted  that  in  the  state  of 
nature  every  man  was  in  constant  conflict  and 
warfare  with  his  neighbour. 

1  Hooker:   Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  i.,  chap,  x.,  pp.  24, 

25- 

2  Ibid.,  p.  27. 

3  Sir   Henry  Maine   discusses  the    "Law   of   Nature  and 
Equity"  in  Ancient  Law,  chap.  iii. 


68    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

In  modification  of  Hobbes's  view,  Locke 
asserted1  that  men  in  the  state  of  nature  are  not 
in  absolute  anarchy,  but  are  subject  to  the  law 
of  reason  which  "teaches  all  mankind,  who  will 
but  consult  it,  that  being  all  equal  and  inde- 
pendent, no  one  ought  to  harm  another  in  his 
life,  health,  liberty,  or  possessions."  He  viewed 
political  society  as  constituted  by  the  compact 
of  its  original  members,  a  compact  that  is  re- 
newed from  generation  to  generation  expressly 
or  tacitly.  By  this  compact  the  individual  volun- 
tarily surrendered  into  the  hands  of  a  central 
or  general  authority  certain  rights  and  powers 
whereby  his  remaining  liberties  and  rights  might 
be  protected  and  maintained;  that  is  to  say,  all 
the  members  of  the  society  agreed  together 
mutually  to  enter  into  one  community  and  make 
one  body  politic.2  That  which  makes  the  com- 
munity is  the  agreement  to  incorporate  and  act 
as  one  body,  and  so  be  one  distinct  common- 
wealth.3 

Spinoza  founded  the  right  of  the  de  facto  govern- 
ment to  rule  upon  its  power  to  maintain  itself 
against  force  from  any  quarter  whatsoever. 
Blackstone  maintained  that  men  hold  together 

1  On  Civil  Government,  book  ii.,  chap.  ii.f  par.  6. 

2  Ibid.,  book  ii.,  chap,  viii.,  par.  95  et  seq. 

3  Ibid.,  book  ii.,  chap,  xix.,  par.  an. 


The  Nature  and  Origin  of  the  State    69 

in  society  because  they  cannot  help  it.  Hobbes's 
idea  of  the  social  contract  entered  into  by  the 
different  members  of  society  was  one  of  absolute 
submission.  Rousseau's  idea  of  this  contract 
was  that  each  person  put  himself  under  the 
direction  of  the  will  of  the  community,  yet  re- 
mained as  free  as  before.  His  contract  is  not 
between  a  man  and  a  ruler  but  between  man 
and  man,  each  and  all  retaining  equal  rights 
politically. 

The  force  theory  needs  no  refutation  for,  while 
it  has  had  very  much  to  do  with  governments 
that  rise  and  fall,  it  has  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  general  institution  of  the  state.  The  theory 
that  the  state  developed  from  the  promiscuous 
horde  does  not  call  for  consideration  here.  It 
may  be  stated,  however,  that  the  political  writ- 
ers of  our  own  day  generally  accept  Aristotle's 
view  that  the  state  did  not  develop  out  of  the 
family,  for  these  two  institutions  are  essentially 
different. 

Famous  and  influential  as  the  social  and  govern- 
mental contract  theories  were  in  their  age,  and 
brilliant  and  persuasive  as  were  the  writers  who 
adopted  them,  "we  now  know  that  men  lived 
in  civil  society,  with  complicated  laws  and  customs 
and  creeds,  for  many  thousand  years  before  the 
notion  had  ever  entered  anybody's  head  that 


70     Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

things  could  be  regulated  by  contract."1  "Gov- 
ernment came,  so  to  say,  before  the  individual 
and  was  coeval  with  his  first  human  instincts."2 

All  through  the  Middle  Ages,  and  prior  to  the 
golden  age  of  the  contract  theory  of  the  origin 
of  the  state,  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  right  of 
kings  prevailed.  It  was  held  quite  generally 
that  two  swords  had  been  given  to  Peter  by  Christ 
Himself.  The  one  was  to  be  wielded  by  the 
church  for  the  church  and  the  other  to  be  given 
by  the  church  to  a  world-emperor  and  by  him  to 
be  wielded  over  the  secular  realm  for  the  church. 
Discussion,  dispute,  and  dissension  as  to  the 
relation  properly  existing  between  these  two 
swords  continued  for  centuries.  Some  held  that 
civil  government  is  evil,  and  becomes  holy  only 
by  the  authorisation  and  blessing  of  the  church, 
that  the  state  needs  to  be  hallowed  by  the  church. 
Pope  Gregory  VII,  for  example,  maintained  that 
the  state  originated  in  man's  pride,  worldliness, 
and  ignorance,  and  is  the  work  of  sin  and  the 
devil.3 

Manegold    von    Lautenbach    (1081)    declared 


1  Fiske:  Civil  Government  in  the  United  States ,  p.  188. 

2  Wilson:  The  State,  p.  12. 

3  Poole:  Illustrations  of  Mediceval   Thought,   p.    229.     See 
Works  in  Migne,  vol.  148.    Also  see  lib.  8,  ep.  21,  ann.  1080, 
pp.  456,  457;  lib.  4,  ep.  2,  ann.  1076,  p.  243. 


The  Nature  and  Origin  of  the  State    71 

that  the  state  is  the  mere  work  of  man.  King- 
ship does  not  exist  either  by  nature  or  merit. 
The  word  king  is  a  mere  title  of  office.  The  power 
which  he  has  was  given  him  by  the  people.  They 
made  a  compact  with  him  and  chose  him  king 
that  he  might  force  evil  men  to  obedience  and 
defend  the  good  from  the  bad.1 

The  sanctity  that  had  attached  in  a  greater  or 
less  degree  to  kings  for  centuries  belonged  to  the 
kingship  rather  than  to  the  king,  to  the  office 
rather  than  to  the  incumbent.  Emperors,  kings, 
and  popes  alike  were  made  and  unmade,  crowned 
and  uncrowned,  enthroned  and  dethroned.  As 
the  centuries  passed,  this  view  became  more 
and  more  marked.  In  general  the  defenders  of 
civil  government  throughout  the  Middle  Ages 
contended  that  the  two  swords  are  distinct  and 
independent  powers,  both  instituted  by  God  Him- 
self. This  doctrine,  century  after  century, ' '  fought 
a  battle  for  the  principle  that  the  imperium, 
like  the  sacerdotium,  proceeds  immediately  from 
God  (imperium  a  Deo)  and  therefore  depends  from 
God  and  not  from  the  church  (imperium  non  de- 
pendet  ab  ecclesia).2  Through  all  the  discussion, 
there  was  the  general  admission  on  the  part  of 

1  Sullivan:  The  Antecedents  of  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence, i.,  76,  77. 

2  Gierke:  Political  Theories  of  the  Middle  Age,  pp.  16,  17. 


72    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

the  church  that  the  origin  of  the  state  is  mediately 
divine,  and  the  general  claim  on  the  part  of  the 
state  that  its  origin  is  immediately  divine.  Thus, 
with  both  parties,  God  is  either  the  direct  or 
indirect  source  of  all  civil  authority  and  govern- 
ment. He  uses  His  representatives,  His  creatures, 
to  carry  out  His  will.  The  same  rule  would  apply 
to  the  petty  local  post  as  well  as  to  the  imperial 
throne.  The  Electors  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire, 
the  princes  or  the  people  of  any  country,  casting 
votes  for  their  emperor  or  king  were  viewed  as 
instruments  in  the  hands  of  God  for  carrying 
out  His  government  in  the  world.  But  however 
certain  men  were  that  God  was  the  ultimate 
cause  or  origin  of  the  state,  this  cause  fell  back 
into  the  position  of  a  causa  remota  working  through 
human  agency.  They  introduced  as  the  more 
proximate  cause  the  political  nature  implanted 
by  God  in  man.  "More  and  more  decisively  was 
expressed  the  opinion  that  the  very  union  of  men 
in  a  political  bond  was  an  act  of  rational,  human 
will.  Occasionally  there  may  appear  the  notion 
that  the  state  was  an  institution  which  was 
founded  as  other  human  institutions  (e.g.,  mon- 
asteries or  colleges)  were  founded,  by  certain 
definite  founders,  either  in  peaceful  wise  or  by 
some  act  of  violence;  but,  in  the  main,  there  was 
a  general  inclination  towards  the  hypothesis  of 


The  Nature  and  Origin  of  the  State    73 

some  original,  creative,  act  of  will  of  the  whole 
uniting  community. " 1 

The  doctrine  of  the  divine  right  of  kings,  as  it 
is  commonly  termed,  asserts  the  inherent  right 
of  the  state  to  exist,  and  that  the  civil  authorities 
no  less  than  the  ecclesiastical  are  ordained  of 
God.  In  other  words,  the  power  of  the  prince 
comes  immediately  from  God,  not  mediately 
through  pope  or  church.  The  ruler,  or  the  state 
he  represents,  is  accountable  only  to  God,  and 
not  to  any  earthly  power.2  Sir  Frederick  Pollock 
asserts  that  this  doctrine  of  divine  right  has  no 
merit  to  modern  eyes,  that  it  is  not  rational,  not 
ingenious,  not  even  ancient.3 

Turning  now  to  the  teaching  and  argument  of 
Martin  Luther  on  the  origin  of  the  state,  we  find 
that  in  his  tract  on  Secular  Authority*  he  maintains 
that  the  state  exists  by  God's  will  and  institution ; 
for  the  Apostle  Paul  writes:  "Let  every  soul  be 
subject  unto  the  higher  powers.  For  there  is  no 
power  but  of  God :  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained 
of  God.  Whosoever  therefore  resisteth  the  power, 

»  Gierke:  Political  Theories  of  the  Middle  Age,  p.  89. 

2  Figgis:  Studies  of  Political  Thought  from  Gerson  to  Grotius, 
pp.  71,  72. 

3  Pollock:  An  Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Science  of 
Politics,  p.  65. 

*  Von  weltlicher  Oberkeit,  wie  weit  man  ihr  Gehorsam  schuldig 
sei  (1523).  Weimar  ed.,  n  Band,  229  et  seq. 


74    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God:  and  they  that 
resist  shall  receive  to  themselves  damnation."1 
The  Apostle  Peter  exhorts:  "Submit  yourselves 
to  every  ordinance  of  man  for  the  Lord's  sake: 
whether  it  be  to  the  king,  as  supreme,  or  unto  gov- 
ernors, as  unto  them  that  are  sent  by  him  for  the 
punishment  of  evildoers,  and  for  the  praise  of  them 
that  do  well. ' ' 2  The  right  of  the  sword  has  existed 
since  the  beginning  of  the  world.  When  Cain 
killed  his  brother  Abel,  he  was  so  fearful  of  being 
put  to  death  himself  that  God  laid  a  special 
prohibition  thereupon  that  no  one  should  kill 
him,  which  fear  he  would  not  have  had  had  he 
not  seen  and  heard  from  Adam  that  murderers 
should  be  put  to  death.  Further,  after  the  flood, 
God  repeated  and  confirmed  it  in  explicit  lan- 
guage, when  he  declared:  "Whoso  sheddeth  man's 
blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed."3  This 
law  was  ratified  later  by  the  law  of  Moses:  "But 
if  a  man  come  presumptuously  upon  his  neigh- 
bour, to  slay  him  with  guile;  thou  shalt  take  him 
from  mine  altar,  that  he  may  die";4  and  yet 
again:  "life  for  life,  eye  for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth, 
hand  for  hand,  foot  for  foot,  burning  for  burning, 
wound  for  wound,  stripe  for  stripe."5 

1  Romans  xiii.,  i,  2.  3  Genesis  ix.,  6. 

2  i  Peter  ii.,  13,  14.  4  Exodus  xxi.,  14. 

s  Exodus  xxi.,  23-25. 


The  Nature  and  Origin  of  the  State    75 

Christ  confirmed  it  also  when  He  said  to  Peter 
in  the  garden:  "All  they  that  take  the  sword  shall 
perish  with  the  sword."1  The  words  of  Christ: 
"But  I  say  unto  you,  That  ye  resist  not  evil"2; 
"Love  your  enemies,  ...  do  good  to  them  that 
hate  you"3;  and  similar  passages,  having  great 
weight,  might  seem  to  indicate  that  Christians 
under  the  Gospel  should  not  have  a  worldly 
sword;  but  the  human  race  is  to  be  divided  into 
two  classes,  one  belonging  to  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  the  other  to  the  kingdom  of  the  world. 
To  the  first  class  belong  all  true  believers  in 
Christ  and  under  Christ,  for  Christ  is  king  and 
Lord  in  the  kingdom  of  God.4  These  people  need 
no  worldly  sword  or  law.  If  the  world  were  made 
up  of  true  Christians,  it  would  need  no  prince,  king, 
or  lord,  no  sword  or  law,  for  they  have  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  their  hearts  who  suffer  wrong  gladly 
and  themselves  do  wrong  to  no  one.  There  is  no 
need  of  quarrel  or  contention,  of  court  or  punish- 
ment. St.  Paul  says:  "The  law  is  not  made  for  a 
righteous  man,  but  for  the  lawless  and  disobe- 
dient, for  the  ungodly  and  for  sinners"5;  for  the 
righteous  man  of  himself  does  everything  that 


*  Matthew  xxvi.,  52.  2  Ibid.,  v.,  38,  39. 

3  Ibid.,  v.,  44. 

4  Psalm  ii.,  6,  "und  die  ganze  Schrift. " 

5  /  Timothy  i.,  9. 


76    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

the  law  demands  and  more;  but  the  unrighteous 
do  nothing  right,  and  they  therefore  need  the 
law  to  teach,  constrain,  and  compel  them  to  do 
right.  A  good  tree  requires  no  instruction  or  law 
that  it  may  bring  forth  good  fruit,  but  its  nature 
causes  it  to  bear  fruit  after  its  kind.  Thus  are 
all  Christians  so  fashioned  through  the  Spirit 
and  faith  that  they  do  right  naturally,  more  than 
man  could  teach  them  with  all  laws.  All  those 
who  are  not  Christians  in  this  particular  sense 
belong  to  the  kingdom  of  the  world.  Inasmuch 
as  there  are  few  who  are  true  Christians  in  faith 
and  life,  God  established,  in  addition  to  the  king- 
dom of  God,  another  rule — that  of  temporal  power 
or  civil  government,  and  gave  it  the  sword  to 
compel  the  wicked  to  be  orderly.  It  is  for  this 
worldly  estate  that  law  is  given.  Christ  rules 
without  law,  alone  through  the  Spirit,  but  worldly 
government  protects  the  peace  with  the  sword. 
Likewise,  true  Christians,  although  not  in  need 
of  it  for  themselves,  nevertheless  render  cheerful 
obedience  to  this  government,  through  love  for 
the  others  who  do  need  it.  A  Christian  himself 
may  wield  the  sword,  when  called  upon,  to  main- 
tain peace  among  men  and  to  punish  wrong. 
This  authority,  which  is  God's  handmaid,  as 
St.  Paul  says,  is  as  necessary  and  good,  as  other 

worldly  callings.  4  God  therefore  instituted  two 
| 


The  Nature  and  Origin  of  the  State    77 

regiments  or  governments,  the  spiritual  which, 
through  the  Holy  Ghost  under  Christ  makes 
Christian  and  pious  people,  and  the  worldly  or 
temporal  which  warns  the  non-Christians  and  the 
wicked  that  they  must  maintain  external  peace. 
We  must  clearly  distinguish  between  these  two 
powers  and  let  them  remain,  —  the  one  that 
makes  pious,  the  other  that  makes  for  external 
peace  and  protects  against  wickedness.  ,  Neither 
one  is  sufficient  in  the  world  without  the  other, 
for  without  the  spiritual  estate  of  Christ  no  one 
can  be  good  before  God  through  the  worldly 
estate.  Where  civil  government  alone  rulesT 
there  would  be  hypocrisy,  though  its  laws  were 
like  God's  commandments  themselves,  for  with- 
out the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  heart  none  can  be 
pious,  whatever  good  works  he  may  perform. 
Where  the  spiritual  estate  rules  over  land  and 
people,  there  will  be  unbridled  wickedness  and 
an  opportunity  for  all  kinds  of  villainy,  for  the 
common  world  cannot  accept  or  understand  it. 
But,  it  may  be  said,  if  then  Christians  do  not 
need  the  temporal  sword  or  law,  why  does  St. 
Paul  say  to  all  Christians:  "Let  every  soul  be 
subject  unto  the  higher  powers"?1  In  reply  to 
this,  it  is  to  be  said  again,  that  Christians  among 
themselves  and  by  and  for  themselves  require  no 

1  Romans  xiii.,  i. 


78    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

law  or  sword,  for  to  them  they  are  not  necessary 
or  useful.  But  because  a  true  Christian  on  earth 
lives  for  and  serves  not  himself  but  his  neighbour, 
so  he  also,  from  the  nature  of  his  spirit,  does 
that  that  he  himself  does  not  need,  but  that  is 
useful  and  necessary  to  his  neighbour.  The  sword 
is  a  great  and  necessary  utility  to  the  whole  world 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  peace,  the  punishment 
of  wrong,  and  the  restraint  of  the  wicked.  So 
the  Christian  pays  tribute  and  tax,  honours  civil 
authority,  serves,  assists  and  does  everything  he 
can  to  maintain  that  authority  with  honour  and 
-fear. 

In  his  Address  to  the  German  Nobility ^  Luther 
asserts  that  the  temporal  power  is  a  fellow-mem- 
ber of  the  Christian  body,  and  although  it  has  a 
bodily  work,  it  is  nevertheless  of  spiritual  estate. 
In  this  appeal,  and  elsewhere  as  well,  he  makes  a 
clear  distinction — as  will  be  shown  in  another 
chapter — between  legitimate  and  illegitimate,  be- 
tween constitutional  and  unconstitutional  admin- 
istration or  government,  declaring  that  these  may 
be  open  to  question,  investigation,  and  correction. 
It  is  sufficient  at  this  point  to  note  that  he  main- 
tains that  the  state  is  a  necessity  to  man,  that  it 

*  An  den  christlichen  Adel  deutscher  Nation  von  des  christ- 
lichen  Standes  Besserung  (1520).  Weimar  ed.,  6  Band,  381 
et  seq. 


The  Nature  and  Origin  of  the  State    79 

has  existed  from  the  beginnings  of  the  race,  and 
that  it — i.e.,  not  any  one  particular  state,  nor  any 
one  particular  government  or  form  of  government, 
but  the  state — is  as  necessary  a  part  of  the  divine 
plan  or  economy  for  the  benefit  of  the  external 
life  of  man  in  society  as  the  institution  of  the  •  j 
church  and  the  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  is  a 
necessary  part  of  that  same  divine  plan  for  the 
benefit  and  the  salvation  of  the  immortal  soul. 
The  civil  government,  therefore,  deserves  and 
demands  our  loyalty  and  obedience  within  its 
legitimate  jurisdiction  as  truly  as  the  church  has 
a  right  to  similar  loyalty  and  obedience  within 
its  sphere. 

Luther  absolutely  severs  the  state  from  any  * 
origin  from  or  dependence  upon  the  church. 
Though  the  spiritual  significance  of  the  state  was 
yet  dark  to  him,  he  presented  the  moral  or  ethical 
nature  of  the  state  with  faithful  emphasis.1  Back 
of  all  human  instrumentalities  he  saw  the  divine 
hand  controlling,  in  any  event  permitting,  the 
various  operations  of  states  and  of  peoples  as  of 
individuals.  It  is  an  easy  thing,  he  wrote  to  the 
insurgent  peasants  of  Swabia  in  1525,  for  the 
Lord  God  to  cast  empire  and  principality  here 

*  Bluntschli :  Geschichte  der  neueren  Statswissenschaft,  All- 
gemeines  Statsrecht  und  Politik  seit  dem  16  Jahrhundert  bis 
zur  Gegenwart,  pp.  58-61. 


8o    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

and  there.  Now  He  gives  an  empire  to  a  wicked 
knave,  taking  it  from  a  pious  man,  sometimes 
through  the  treachery  of  evil  men,  sometimes 
through  inheritance.  He  has  power  in  all  things 
among  men  to  give  them  to  whom  He  will.1 

In  his  explanation  of  the  Fourth  Command- 
ment,2 Luther  includes  all  who  are  in  the  service 
of  the  state,  from  electors  down  to  members  of 
town  councils,  as  among  those  who  are  to  be 
feared,  respected,  and  obeyed  because  they  bear 
the  " sword  of  the  Lord,"  and  quotes  the  Old 
Testament  law:  "Thou  shalt  not  revile  the  gods 
[judges],  nor  curse  the  ruler  of  thy  people."3 

We  have  yet  another  presentation  of  the  views 
of  Luther  and  his  associates  in  an  historic  docu- 
ment written  by  Melanchthon  and  presented  to 
Charles  V  at  the  Imperial  Diet  held  in  Augsburg 
in  1530, — the  first  creed  of  Christendom  that  sets 
forth  the  origin,  the  nature,  and  the  separate 
jurisdiction  of  the  state  as  distinct  from  the 
church.  The  theory  of  the  nature  and  origin  of 
the  state  as  then  and  there  expressed  is  main- 
tained to-day  by  hundreds  of  millions  in  the 

1  Bluntschli:  Geschichte  der  neueren  Statswissenschaft,  All- 
gemeines  Statsrecht  und  Politik  seit  dem  16  Jahrhundert  bis 
zur  Gegenwart,  p.  68 

2  Die  zehn  Gebote  dem  Volk  zu  Wittenberg  gepredigt.     Das 
vierte  Gebot  (1516).     Walch  ed. ,  iii. ,  1222  et  seq. 

*  Exodus  xxii.,  28. 


The  Nature  and  Origin  of  the  State    81 

most  advanced  nations  and  freest  governments 
on  the  face  of  the  earth. l  This  document  declares 
that  legitimate  civil  enactments  are  good  works 
of  God;  that  it  is  lawful  for  Christians  to  hold 
civil  offices,  to  pronounce  judgment  and  decide 
cases  according  to  the  existing  laws  of  the  country 
or  realm;  to  inflict  just  punishment,  wage  just 
wars,  and  serve  in  them;  to  make  lawful  contracts, 
hold  property;  to  make  oath  when  required  by 
the  magistrate;  to  marry  and  be  married.  It 
expressly  condemns  those  who  forbid  to  Christians 
the  performance  of  these  civil  duties.  It  likewise 
condemns  those  who  make  evangelical  perfection 
consist  not  in  the  fear  of  God  and  in  faith,  but 
in  the  abandonment  of  all  civil  duties.  It  de- 
clares that  Christians  ought  necessarily  yield 
obedience  to  their  civil  officers  and  laws  unless 
they  command  something  sinful,  in  which  case 
they  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than  men  (Acts 
v.,  29). 2 

i  The  origin  of  the  state  as  an  institution  is  too  frequently, 
unfortunately,  confounded  with  the  origin  of  particular 
states,  particular  forms  of  government,  or  particular  rulers. 
They  must  be  carefully  distinguished.  The  failure  to  do  so 
leads  more  than  one  writer  astray  in  the  presentation  of 
Luther's  teaching  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  state.  See 
Willoughby:  An  Examination  of  the  Nature  of  the  State,  pp. 
48,  50. 

*  The  Augsburg  Confession,  Article  xvi.,  Walch  ed.,  xvi., 
83 1  et  seq. 
6 


82     Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

Morley  asserts  that : 

The  statement  that  while  the  constitution  of  man 
is  the  work  of  nature,  that  of  the  state  is  the  work 
of  art,  is  as  misleading  as  the  opposite  statement 
that  governments  are  not  made,  but  grow,  and  the 
truth  lies  between  them,  in  such  propositions  as  that 
institutions  owe  their  existence  and  development  to 
deliberate  human  effort,  working  in  accordance  with 
circumstances  naturally  fixed  both  in  human  charac- 
ter and  in  the  external  field  of  its  activity.1 

The  government  of  the  state  may  be  imperfect, 
as  may  be  likewise  the  government  of  the  church. 
Either  power  may  be  despotic  on  the  one  hand, 
or  democratic  on  the  other  hand;  but  the  state 
is  the  one  earthly  institution  in  the  maintenance 
and  advancement  of  which  every  class,  indeed 
every  individual,  may  well  have  the  deepest 
interest.  Indeed  "there  is  no  existing  institution 
which  can  claim  from  the  bible  so  distinctly 
sacred  a  character."  2 

"  For  those  who  believe  that  man  was  created 
in  the  divine  image,  there  is  always  the  funda- 
mental belief  that  the  impulse  to  social  life  and 
to  the  formation  and  development  of  the  state 
comes  from  Him,  and  that  He  is  therefore  con- 

1  Morley:  Rousseau,  ii.,  179,  180. 

2  Stanley :  Essays  chiefly  on  Questions  of  Church  and  State, 

P-  351- 


The  Nature  and  Origin  of  the  State    83 

cerned  with  all  things  pertaining  to  order  and 
government."1 

Luther  teaches  us  that  the  state  is  natural  and 
necessary  to  the  human  race  and  that,  as  such, 
it  is  a  part  of  the  divine  economy  for  man.2  This 
being  true,  it  has  always  existed  and  must  continue 
to  exist  to  the  end  of  time.  Nations  come  and 
go,  kingdoms  rise  and  fall,  forms  of  government 
and  administration  suffer  change;  but  the  state, 
as  an  institution,  is  permanent  and  universal. 

The  state,  indeed,  is  as  natural  and  necessary 

1  Prall:  The  State  and  the  Church,  pp.  96,  97. 

2  "It  would  be  peculiarly  improper  to  omit,"  said  George 
Washington  in  his  Inaugural  Speech  to  Congress  in  1789, 
"in  this  first  official  act,  my  fervent  supplications  to  that 
Almighty  Being  who  rules  over  the  universe,  who  presides 
in  the  councils  of  nations,  and  whose  providential  aids  can 
supply  every  human  defect,  that  his  benediction  may  con- 
secrate to  the  liberties  and  happiness  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  a  government  instituted  by  themselves  for 
these  essential  purposes,  and  may  enable  every  instrument 
employed  in  its  administration  to  execute,  with  success,  the 
functions  allotted  to  his  charge.     In  tendering  this  homage 
to  the  Great  Author  of  every  public  and  private  good,  I  assure 
myself  that  it  expresses  your  sentiments  not  less  than  my 
own,  nor  those  of  my  fellow  citizens  at  large  less  than  either. 
No  people  can  be  bound  to  acknowledge  and  adore  the  Invis- 
ible Hand  which  conducts  the  affairs  of  men  more  than  the 
people  of  the  United  States.     Every  step  by  which  they  have 
advanced  to  the  character  of  an  independent  nation,  seems 
to   have   been  distinguished  by  some  token  of  providential 
agency. " — Bryan:  The  World's  Famous  Orations,  viii.,  80,  81. 


84    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

for  men  in  association  as  food  is  for  the  man 
individually.  As  there  is  one  common  will  in 
the  individual,  directing  and  controlling  the 
various  members  of  the  body — for  there  could  be 
no  peace  or  harmony  otherwise,  but  constant 
conflict  and  confusion, — so  there  must  be  and, 
in  view  of  this  natural  necessity,  there  is  one 
common  governing  will  among  men  who  live 
within  touch  of  one  another  with  that  power  to 
regulate  and  control.  The  form  of  its  govern- 
ment and  the  manner  of  its  administration  are 
determined  by  men,  but  the  state  itself  is  a  human 
necessity  arising  immediately  upon  the  creation 
of  man  by  the  divine  hand.  Hunger  and  thirst 
cannot  well  be  denominated  as  of  human  origin 
or  institution,  although  they  belong  to  human 
experience;  neither,  in  this  sense,  may  it  be  said 
of  the  state.  The  origin  of  government  belongs 
to  the  secrets  of  the  unknown  past;  but  no  people 
have  ever  been  known  to  the  world  who  did  not 
recognise  the  necessity  of  a  supreme  authority 
or  government,  to  which  they  owed  allegiance 
and  obedience.  "Wherever  men  are  found  they 
live  under  some  form  of  government,  however 
rude  and  imperfect.  In  all  parts  and  in  all  ages 
of  the  world  they  have  seen  the  necessity  of  some 
power  to  protect  the  weak  and  restrain  the  strong, 
and  have  therefore  set  up  a  supreme  authority 


The  Nature  and  Origin  of  the  State    85 

for  the  common  welfare."1  The  individual  is 
born  in  the  state  politically,  as  he  is  born  in  the 
family.  The  individual  and  the  state  belong  as 
much  to  nature  as  the  whole  created  universe. 
"The  origin  of  both  is  an  integral  part  of  the 
mystery  of  the  universe  that  has  baffled  the 
endeavours  of  uninspired  finite  reason  to  solve."2 

1  Peterman:  Elements  of  Civil  Government,  p.  158. 

2  M'Kechnie:  The  State  and  the  Individual,  p.  63. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  STATE 

A.     Viewed   Internally 

OOVEREIGNTY  is  an  essential  attribute  of 
*J  every  independent  state.  It  is  the  supreme 
dignity,  power,  and  authority  of  the  state.  As 
Bluntschli  defines  it :  "  The  state  is  the  embodiment 
and  personification  of  the  national  power.  This 
power,  considered  in  its  highest  dignity  and 
greatest  force,  is  called  sovereignty."  *  The  word 
sovereignty  was  first  used  in  this  sense,  it  is 
commonly  asserted,  by  the  Frenchman  Jean 
Bodin  in  the  third  quarter  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
He  declared  that  sovereignty  is  the  absolute 
and  perpetual  power  of  a  state. 2  A  later  authority 
on  the  subject  expresses  the  notion  of  sovereignty 
in  these  words : 

»  Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  463. 
2  "Puissance  absolue    et    perpetuelle  d'une   r6publique. " 
Bodin:  De  la  Republique,  i.,  i. 

86 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State       87 

If  a  determinate  human  superior,  not  in  a  habit  of 
obedience  to  a  like  superior,  receive  habitual  obedi- 
ence from  the  bulk  of  a  given  society,  that  deter- 
minate superior  is  sovereign  in  that  society,  and  the 
society  (including  the  superior)  is  a  society  political 
and  independent.  ...  In  order  that  a  given  society 
may  form  a  society  political  and  independent,  the  two 
distinguishing  marks  which  I  have  mentioned  above 
must  unite.  The  generality  of  the  given  society 
must  be  in  the  habit  of  obedience  to  a  determinate 
and  common  superior;  while  that  determinate  person, 
or  determinate  body  of  persons,  must  not  be  habitu- 
ally obedient  to  a  determinate  person  or  body.1 

Sovereignty,  as  understood  in  our  age,  implies 
absolute  political  power  within  the  state,— 
supreme  power  to  regulate  all  affairs  within  the 
state,2  and  yet  itself  subject  to  no  authority.  It 
is  something  more  than  a  mere  collection  or 
aggregation  of  all  the  various  particular  powers 
of  the  state,  such  as  levying  taxes,  making  war 
and  peace,  and  maintaining  various  departments 
of  the  public  service.  It  includes  all  these,  but 
represents  still  more.3  It  is  not  only  the  sum 

1  Austin:  Lectures  on  Jurisprudence,  i.,  117,  118. 

2  Professor  Huxley  says:  "It  follows  that  no  limit  is  or 
can  be  theoretically  set  to  state  interference.  " 

3  Willoughby:      An  Examination  of  the  Nature  of  the  State, 
pp.  194,  195. 


88    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

of  all  the  parts,  but  it  is  the  life  of  the 
state  itself,  properly  regulating  and  harmonis- 
ing these  various  parts.  It  is  not  only  the 
various  members  as  of  the  human  body,  sepa- 
rate and  distinct,  but  it  is  the  sum  of  all  of 
them  in  vital  totality,  each  in  proper  place  for 
the  performance  of  its  appropriate  functions; 
for  the  life  of  the  body  is  much  more  than  the  sum 
of  its  various  members  in  and  of  themselves.  An 
earlier  use  of  the  term,  in  the  Middle  Ages,  was 
applied  to  the  highest  authority  in  any  given 
branch  of  governmental  administration,  as  for 
example,  the  supreme  court  of  a  nation. *  In  the 
course  of  time,  however,  the  term  came  to  be 
applied  to  the  supreme  will  and  power  of  the 
state  as  a  unitary  totality. 

Under  feudalism,  sovereignty  was  in  a  large 
measure  associated  with  the  ownership  or  posses- 
sion of  territory.2  Barons  decided  property  titles 
and  private  rights  by  the  custom  and  the  decisions 
of  their  own  courts,  levied  tolls,  made  war,  and 
frequently  coined  money.3  As  further  territory 
was  secured  by  war,  inheritance,  marriage,  con- 
tract or  otherwise,  the  same  practically  sovereign 
powers  were  exercised  over  the  extended  estate, 

»  Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  463. 
2  Maine:  The  Ancient  Law,  p.  102. 
'Wilson:  The  State,  pp.  177,  178. 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State       89 

and  sovereignty  in  the  barony  developed  into 
sovereignty  of  the  realm. 

Sovereignty,  again,  is  variously  located,  by 
different  writers,  in  the  people  at  large,  that  is,  the 
majority  of  the  unorganised  mass  of  the  people; 
in  the  assembled  citizens  of  the  state;  in  the  peo- 
ple, unorganised,  but  capable  of  organisation;  in 
the  state  or  nation;  and  in  the  ruler.1 

A  distinction  is  also  to  be  made  between  political 
sovereignty  and  legal  sovereignty.  The  political 
sovereign  is  the  "intangible  source  of  all  govern- 
ment: the  legal  sovereign  is  simply  that  part  of 
the  actual  machinery  of  government  which  is 
superior  to  the  other  parts,  having  legal  control 
over  the  rest,  and  being  itself  subject  to  none. 
The  latter  is  only  a  particular  and  perhaps  tempo- 
rary embodiment  of  the  former  which  is  perpetual 
and  inalienable. " 2  The  legal  sovereign  is  different 
in  every  state,  for  it  is  to  be  found  in  that  person 
or  organ  in  whom  is  placed  by  law  the  right  to 
speak  the  last  word.  The  King  of  Great  Britain 
is  that  country's  titular  sovereign,  but  the  king 
in  parliament  (parliament  and  the  king  together) 
is  the  legal  sovereign.  "Its  formal  decisions 
embodied  in  statutes  are  legally  irresponsible, 
irresistible,  and  irreversible — except  by  parliament 

1  Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  pp.  467^-474. 

2  M'Kechnie:  The  State  and  the  Individual,  p.  132. 


90    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

itself." i  De  Lolme,  who  has  been  quoted  by 
nearly  every  succeeding  writer  on  the  powers  of 
parliament,  declared:  "It  is  a  fundamental  prin- 
ciple with  English  lawyers  that  parliament  can 
do  everything  but  make  a  woman  a  man,  and  a 
man  a  woman."  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however, 
parliament  does  not  and  may  not  be  expected  to 
do  anything  contrary  to  the  cherished  principles 
and  privileges  of  the  people,  for  did  they  do  so, 
their  constituencies  would  return  other  members 
to  the  House  of  Commons  more  in  accord  with 
their  own  will,  and  parliament  would  be  changed. 
The  sovereignty  of  parliament  is  thus  limited 
de  facto.2  The  political  or  actual  sovereign  of 
Great  Britain,  therefore,  is  the  people  back  of  the 
parliament. 

The  various  separate  states  of  a  confederation 
may  be  virtually  sovereign.  The  constitution  of 
Switzerland,  for  example,  declares:  "The  cantons 
are  sovereign,  so  far  as  their  sovereignty  is  not 
limited  by  the  federal  constitution;  and,  as  such, 
they  exercise  all  the  rights  which  are  not  delegated 
to  the  federal  government." 3  The  constitution 
of  the  United  States  provides  that:  "  This  consti- 

»  M'Kechnie;  The  State  and  the  Individual,  p.  127. 

2  Wilson:  The  State,  p.  600. 

3  Constitution  of  the  Swiss  Confederation,  Chap,  i.,  Art.  3. 
See  Dodd:  Modern  Constitutions,  ii.,  257. 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State       91 

'* 

tution,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  which 
shall  be  made  in  pursuance  thereof;  and  all  treaties 
made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under  the  authority 
of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land;  and  the  judges  in  every  state  shall  be 
bound  thereby,  anything  in  the  constitution  or 
laws  of  any  state  to  the  contrary  notwithstand- 
ing." *  Within  certain  limits,  the  various  states 
of  the  United  States,  like  the  Swiss  cantons,  are 
possessed  of  supreme  or  sovereign  power. 

It  is  difficult  to  reconcile  this  division  of  power 
—for  sovereignty  is  necessarily  unitary  and  in- 
divisible — except  by  locating  sovereignty  in  the 
combined  will  of  the  whole.  Sovereign  power 
implies  unity.  Division  implies  separation,  dis- 
agreement, weakness,  paralysis.  It  is  said  of  us, 
therefore,  that  '  *  sovereignty  rests  in  its  entirety 
with  that  not  very  determinate  body  of  persons, 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  the  powers  of 
sovereignty  resting  with  the  state  and  federal 
authorities  by  delegation  from  the  people."2 

Bodin  already  declared  sovereignty  to  be 
indivisible.3  Rousseau  asserted:  "Though  power 

'  Constitution  of  the  United  States  of  America,  Article  VI. 

2  Wilson:  The  State,  p.  610. 

3  According  to  Bodin,  sovereignty,  the  highest  power  in  a 
state,  is  subject  to  no  laws  but  is  itself  the  maker  and  master 
of  them.     Whether  it  reside  in  one  person  or  in  a  number  of 


92    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

may  be  divided,  will  cannot. "  The  feudal  system 
and  the  currency  of  the  principles  of  natural  law 
had  excluded,  in  the  Middle  Ages,  the  doctrine 
of  the  state's  unlimited  and  indivisible  authority 
over  its  own  territory. 

The  mediaeval  system  of  Europe  [says  Sir  Frederick 
Pollock]  was  not  a  system  of  states  in  our  sense  or 
in  the  Greek  sense.  It  was  a  collection  of  groups, 
held  together  in  the  first  instance  by  ties  of  personal 
dependence  and  allegiance,  and  connected  among 
themselves  by  personal  relations  of  the  same  kind 
on  a  magnified  scale.  Lordship  and  homage,  from 
the  emperor  down  to  the  humblest  feudal  tenant, 
were  the  links  in  the  chain  of  steel  which  saved  the 
world  from  being  dissolved  into  a  chaos  of  jarring 
fragments.  .  .  .  The  old  unity  of  the  clan  had  dis- 
appeared, and  it  was  only  gradually  and  slowly, 
as  kingdoms  were  consolidated  by  strong  rulers,  that 
the  newer  unity  of  the  nation  took  its  place.1 

Once  discover  where  that  political  power  lies 
that  is  all-controlling  and  not  controlled,  that 
is  permanent,  independent,  and  supreme,  and 

persons,  it  is  above  all  law,  incapable  of  limitation  or  divi- 
sion, and  has  an  absolute  claim  to  the  obedience  of  all  its 
subjects,  irrespective  of  the  justice  or  policy  of  its  acts. 
Bryce :  Studies  in  History  \ind  Jurisprudence,  pp.  532,  533. 
»  Pollock:  An  Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Science  of 
Politics,  pp.  47,  48. 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State       93 

you  find  the  sovereign.1  It  regulates  all  matters 
between  man  and  man  and  between  man  and 
the  state.  The  authority  of  the  state 

is  superior  to  all  other  humanly  established  authori- 
ties; and  all  political  powers  exercised  by  other 
individuals  or  bodies  of  individuals  are  ultimately 
derived  from  it.  It  alone  has  the  power  of  express- 
ing a  command,  or  of  determining  the  validity  of 
an  existing  rule  with  such  absolute  authority  that 
no  recourse  is  admitted  to  another  power,  either  in 
search  for  the  authority  upon  which  such  order  or 
command  is  based,  or  for  the  ultimate  determination 
of  the  wisdom  or  moral  propriety  of  the  actions  so 
ordered.  The  state  is  thus  supreme  not  only  as 
giving  the  ultimate  validity  to  all  law,  but  as  itself 
determining  the  scope  of  its  own  powers,  and  itself 
deciding  what  interests  shall  be  subjected  to  its 
regulation.2 

This  is  that  political  sovereignty  that  has  no 
limit  within  its  own  territory  but  that  of  incapacity 
and  none  without  its  bounds  but  that  of  foreign 
power.  It  must  be  able  to  maintain  and  support 

1  Blackstone  declares  that,  whatever  form  the  government 
may  assume,  "there  is  and  must  be  a  supreme,  irresistible, 
absolute,  uncontrolled  authority,  in  which  the  jura  summa 
imperii  or  the  rights  of  sovereignty  reside."     Pollock:  An 
Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Science  of  Politics,  p.  80. 

2  Willoughby:  An  Examination  of  the  Nature  of  the  State, 
pp.  192,  193. 


94    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

itself,  for  it  is  self-dependent,  if  it  be  independent. 
As  Jellinek  expresses  it:  "The  state  finds  the 
ground  for  its  own  rights  and  duties  in  itself."1 
In  the  last  resort,  sovereignty  resides  in  the 
person  or  persons  possessing  the  power  perma- 
nently to  carry  their  political  will  into  effect, 
despite  the  opposition  or  adverse  influence  of  any 
other  power.  That  is  to  say,  it  is  will,  not  force, 
that  forms  the  basis  of  the  state.2 

It  has  been  shown  that  at  the  time  of  the  elec- 
tion of  Charles  V  as  Emperor  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire  of  the  German  nation,  Germany  was 
what  might  be  termed  a  confederacy,  consisting 
of  a  number  of  virtually  sovereign  states,3  a 
larger  number  of  smaller  political  powers  and 
territories,  free  cities,  etc.,  generally  having  their 
legislative  assemblies,  courts,  and  rulers,  as  did 
the  empire  itself.  Yet,  with  the  confusion  that 
reigned,  the  constantly  changing  jurisprudence, 
and  either  the  absence  of  permanent  courts  of 
appeal,  or  inability  to  enforce  their  decisions,  it  is 

1  Jellinek:  Gesetz  und  Verordnung,  p.  196. 

2  Green :  Lectures  on  the  Principles  of  Political  Obligation,  p. 
121  et  seq.     M'Kechnie:  The  State  and  the  Individual,  p.  69. 

3  The  German  electors  were  able  to  maintain  sovereignty 
in  their  own  dominions  from  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth 
century,  based  on  the  provisions  of  the  Golden  Bull,  be- 
cause they  exercised  supreme  authority  in  them  as  their 
proper  right.     Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  465. 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State       95 

difficult  to  locate  the  sovereignty  of  that  age  and 
people.  In  many  matters  the  electors  possessed 
sovereign  powers  in  their  own  respective  terri- 
tories. In  other  matters,  the  Imperial  Diet, 
composed  of  three  colleges,  with  the  emperor, 
possessed  legal  sovereignty.  Actual  or  political 
sovereignty,  then  as  now,  was  to  be  found  not  in 
the  legal  expression  of  the  will  of  the  people 
through  their  representatives,  but  the  power 
back  of  the  representatives  supporting  them  in 
some  measures  and  opposing  them  in  others. 
The  mark  of  sovereignty  is  to  be  seen  not  alone  in 
the  will  of  the  people  as  definitely  expressed  in 
formal  action  but  in  that  same  will  acquiescing 
in  political  measures  and  conditions.  The  sover- 
eign power  may  passively  permit,  as  well  as 
positively  command  or  prohibit. 

With  this  general  view  of  the  sovereignty  of 
the  state,  so  far  as  it  concerns  its  own  territory 
and  its  own  people,  we  now  turn  to  Martin  Luther's 
teachings  as  to  the  authority  of  the  state  within 
these  limits.  Ecclesiastical  courts,  with  ultimate 
appeal  to  Rome,  had  jurisdiction  in  his  day  over 
all  cases  involving  ecclesiastics,  including  lay 
members  of  the  various  church  orders  and  their 
families.  It  had  been  maintained  for  centuries 
that  the  civil  courts  of  the  land  had  no  juris- 
diction in  any  such  matters.  But  Luther  declared 


96    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

that  the  law  of  the  land  properly  covers  every 
one  within  the  bounds  of  the  kingdom,  including 
clergy  as  well  as  laity,  thus  abolishing  the  so- 
called  "benefit  of  clergy."  To  him,  the  state 
alone  possesses  coercive  authority.  His  view  of 
the  church  and  ecclesiastical  authority  absolutely 
excludes  every  extension  of  that  authority,  as 
divinely  ordained,  to  the  sphere  of  temporal, 
political,  or  civil  life. 

In  his  Appeal  to  the  German  Nobility  he  says1: 

Forasmuch  as  the  temporal  power  has  been  ordained 
by  God  for  the  punishment  of  the  bad  and  the  pro- 
tection of  the  good,  therefore  we  must  let  it  do  its 
duty  throughout  the  whole  Christian  body,  without 
respect  of  persons,  whether  it  strike  popes,  bishops, 
priests,  monks,  nuns,  or  whoever  it  may  be.  If  it  were 
sufficient  reason  for  fettering  the  temporal  power  that 
it  is  inferior  among  the  offices  of  Christianity  to  the 
offices  of  priest  or  confessor,  or  to  the  spiritual  estate 
— if  this  were  so,  then  we  ought  to  restrain  tailors, 
cobblers,  masons,  carpenters,  cooks,  cellarmen,  Deas- 
ants,  and  all  secular  workmen,  from  providing  the 
pope  or  bishops,  priests  and  monks,  with  shoes, 
clothes,  houses,  or  victuals,  or  from  paying  them 
tithes.  But  if  these  laymen  are  allowed  to  do  their 

i  An  den  christlichen  Adel  deutscher  Nation  von  des  christ- 
lichen  Standes  Besserung  (1520),  Weimar  ed.,  6  Band,  381  et 
seq.  Wace  and  Buchheim:  Luther's  Primary  Works,  p.  161 
et  seq. 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State       97 

work  without  restraint,  what  do  the  Romanist  scribes 
mean  by  their  laws  ?  They  mean  that  they  withdraw 
themselves  from  the  operation  of  temporal  Christian 
power,  simply  in  order  that  they  may  be  free  to  do 
evil,  and  thus  fulfil  what  St.  Peter  said:  "There 
shall  be  false  teachers  among  you,  .  .  .  And  through 
covetousness  shall  they  with  feigned  words  make 
merchandise  of  you."1  Therefore  the  temporal 
Christian  power  must  exercise  its  office  without  let  or 
hindrance,  without  considering  whom  it  may  strike, 
whether  pope  or  bishop,  or  priest.  Whoever  is 
guilty,  let  him  suffer  for  it. 

Whatever  the  ecclesiastical  law  has  said  in  opposi- 
tion to  this  is  merely  the  invention  of  Romanist 
arrogance.  For  this  is  what  St.  Paul  says  to  all 
Christians:  "Let  every  soul"  (I  presume  including 
the  popes)  "be  subject  unto  the  higher  powers,  .  .  . 
do  that  which  is  good,  and  thou  shalt  have  praise  of 
the  same  ...  for  he  beareth  not  the  sword  in  vain; 
for  he  is  the  minister  of  God,  a  revenger  to  execute 
wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil."2  Also  St.  Peter: 
"  Submit  yourselves  to  every  ordinance  of  man  for  the 
Lord's  sake,  ...  for  so  is  the  will  of  God."3  He 
has  also  foretold  that  men  would  come  who  would 
despise  government,*  as  has  come  to  pass  through 
ecclesiastical  law. 

Although  the  work  of  the  temporal  power  relates 
to  the  body,  it  yet  belongs  to  the  spiritual  estate. 

1  2  Peter  ii.,  i,  3.  3  /  Peter  ii.,  13,  15. 

2  Romans  xiii.,  1-4.  *  2  Peter  ii. 

7 


98    Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

Therefore  it  must  do  its  duty  without  let  or  hin- 
drance upon  all  members  of  the  whole  body,  to  pun- 
ish or  urge,  as  guilt  may  deserve,  or  need  may  require, 
without  respect  of  pope,  bishops,  or  priests,  let  them 
threaten  or  excommunicate  as  they  will.  That  is 
why  a  guilty  priest  is  deprived  of  his  priesthood 
before  being  given  over  to  the  secular  arm;  whereas 
this  would  not  be  right,  if  the  secular  sword  had  not 
authority  over  him  already  by  divine  ordinance. 

It  is,  indeed,  past  bearing  that  the  spiritual  law 
should  esteem  so  highly  the  liberty,  life,  and  property 
of  the  clergy,  as  if  laymen  were  not  as  good  spiritual 
Christians,  or  not  equally  members  of  the  church. 
Why  should  your  body,  life,  goods,  and  honour  be 
free,  and  not  mine,  seeing  that  we  are  equal  as  Christ- 
ians, and  have  received  alike  baptism,  faith,  spirit, 
and  all  things?  If  a  priest  is  killed,  the  country  is 
laid  under  an  interdict;  why  not  also  if  a  peasant  is 
killed?  Whence  comes  this  great  difference  among 
equal  Christians?  Simply  from  human  laws  and 
inventions. 

Luther  thus  emphatically  declares  that  every 
person  living  within  the  boundaries  of  any  given 
state  is  subject  to  its  laws — whether  he  be  an 
ecclesiastic  or  a  layman,  and  is  equally  entitled  to 
its  protection,  whether  he  be  a  member  of  the 
church  or  a  heretic.  Status  in  the  church  does 
not  affect  or  determine  status  in  the  state.  The 
church  has  a  right  to  determine  ecclesiastical 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State       99 

status,  but  it  has  no  right  to  determine  civil 
status.  Almost  four  centuries  have  passed  since 
Luther  made  his  argument,  but  it  is  as  true  and 
as  applicable  to-day  as  it  was  then.  The  sover- 
eignty of  the  state,  in  its  accepted  significance,  im- 
plies the  subjection  under  it  of  every  individual 
within  its  borders. 

The  views  of  a  later  writer,  much  to  the  same 
effect,  have  been  expressed  thus: 

The  power  and  the  right  of  the  state  extend  to 
the  regulation  of  all  actions  within  it,  whether  these 
be  called  civil  or  sacred.  Claims  such  as  the  church 
of  Rome  makes  to  determine  infallibly  what  is  right 
and  lawful  for  kings  and  states  and  their  subjects 
to  do,  and  what  it  is  unlawful  for  them  to  do,  Spinoza 
regards  as  not  only  inconsistent  with  the  free  exercise 
of  that  reason  which  is  God's  best  gift  to  man,  but 
also  as  fatal  to  the  peace,  prosperity,  and  indepen- 
dence of  any  state  that  allows  such  dictation  from 
without.1 

"The  modern  state,"  says  Bluntschli,  "does 
not  consider  religion  a  condition  of  legal  status. 
...  It  feels  itself  independent,  even  as  against 
the  church  .  .  .  and  maintains  its  supremacy 
even  over  the  church.  It  recognises  no  superior 

1  Duff:  Spinoza's  Political  and  Ethical  Philosophy,  pp.  492, 
493- 


\ 


ioo  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

status  in  the  clergy,  abolishes  their  privileges  and 
immunities,  and  extends  the  authority  of  law 
over  all  classes  equally."1 

The  Middle  Ages  accepted  the  teaching  of  the 
religious  duty  of  obedience  to  the  powers  that 
be,  as  set  forth  in  Romans  xiii  and  i  Peter  ii, 
but  the  common  interpretation  of  these  texts 
was  that  ''the  powers  that  be"  were  the  ecclesias- 
tical authorities,  and  that  obedience  belonged, 
in  the  last  resort,  to  the  Pope  of  Rome.  Not 
only  was  resistance  against  the  king  allowed  when 
authorised  from  Rome,  but  it  was  sometimes 
ordered  from  there.  It  was  Luther  who  insisted 
that  this  obedience  in  all  political  and  secular 
affairs  is  due  the  civil  ruler,  and  that  the  church 
possesses  no  coercive  authority  whatever.2 

Having  his  high  conception  of  the  origin  and 
nature  of  the  state,  Luther  expressed  himself 
in  the  strongest  terms,  consistently  and  persist-/ 
ently,  on  behalf  of  absolute  obedience  on  the 
part  of  the  subject  to  the  state,  so  far  as  its/re- 
quirements were  constitutional  or  legal,  arm  not 
clearly  forbidden  by  the  word  of  GodXln  a 
sermon  on  the  Fourth  Commandment,3  preached 

1  Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  pp.  58,  59. 

2  Figgis:  Studies  of  Political  Thought  from  Gerson  to  Grotius, 
p.  66. 

3  Walch  ed.,  iii.,  1222  et  seq. 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State      101 

at  Wittenberg  in  1516,  he  speaks  of  the  duty  of 
obedience  to  civil  authority,  which  is  to  be  feared 
because  it  wields  the  sword  of  the  Lord.  The 
law  says:  "Thou  shalt  not  revile  the  gods  [judges], 
nor  curse  the  ruler  of  thy  people."1  Even  in  the 
case  of  taxation  and  oppression,  the  subjects  are 
to  bear  it  not  otherwise  than  as  the  hand  of  the 
Lord  which  bears  heavily  upon  them  on  account 
of  their  sins  and  shortcomings. 

In  his  explanation  of  the  Fourth  Commandment, 
as  given  in  his  catechism,  Luther  says  God  gives 
and  preserves  to  us  through  civil  government, 
as  through  parents,  maintenance,  house  and  home, 
protection  and  security;  therefore  we  are  under 
obligations  to  honour  temporal  authority  and 
esteem  it  the  dearest  treasure  and  costliest  gem 
on  earth.2 

At  another  time,  Luther  discusses  the  question 
whether  the  laws  of  Moses,  or  the  imperial  laws 
are  to  be  the  basis  of  judgment,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  some  persons  asserted  that  the  imperial 
laws  were  unchristian.  If  the  temporal  laws, 
he  says,  take  a  position  against  God  in  any  mat- 
ter— though  Luther  admits  he  knows  of  none — 
the  Christian  certainly  should  not  be  governed 

»  Exodus  xxii.,  28. 

2  Der  grosse  Catechismus  (1529):  Das  vierte  Gebot,  Du  sollst 
deinen  Voter  und  Mutter  ehren.  Walch  ed.,  x.,  58,  59. 


J 


102  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

thereby.  But  inasmuch  as  such  temporal  laws 
are  an  external  thing,  as  eating  and  drinking, 
clothing,  house  and  court,  etc.,  they  do  not 
affect  Christians,  who  are  governed  by  the  Spirit 
of  God  in  accordance  with  the  Gospel.  Not  the 
laws  of  Moses,  but  the  imperial  laws,  are  now  in 
force  in  the  world,  he  says,  and  it  would  not  be 
right  to  introduce  sects  and  divisions  by  adopting 
the  law  of  Moses  and  ignoring  the  imperial  laws. 
Faith  and  love  can  well  remain  with  and  under 
the  imperial  laws.  Were  the  emperor  and  the 
princes  to  unite  in  declaring  the  law  of  Moses  as 
in  force,  then  it  would  be  our  duty  to  observe  it. 
Otherwise,  however,  we  should  not  take  up  any 
one  law  and  decry  others.1 

His  theory  of  the  duty  of  obedience  is  shown 
by  a  letter  written  concerning  the  revolt  of  the 
Danish  nobles  and  the  Liibeckers  against  the 
reigning  Christian  II.2  Assuming,  he  says,  that 
the  King  is  wrong,  the  Danes  and  Liibeckers  are 
constituting  themselves  judges  and  over-lords  of 
the  King.  "Were  every  one  who  is  right  him- 
self to  punish  the  wrong-doer,  what  a  spectacle 

»  Bedenken  D.  Martin  Luthers,  ob  man  nach  Mose  oder 
kaiserlichen  Rechten  richten  oder  urtheilen  solle  (1524), 
Walch  ed.,  x.,  354~357- 

2  Raumer:  Ueber  die  geschichtliche  Entwickelung  der  Be~ 
griffe  von  Recht,  Staat  und  Politik,  p.  168. 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State      103 

we  would  have  in  the  world !  Then  we  would  see 
the  servant  strike  the  master,  the  maid  the  mis- 
tress, the  child  the  parents,  the  scholars  the 
teacher.  That  would  be  a  praiseworthy  state  of 
affairs!  What  need  would  there  be  for  law  and 
temporal  authority,  ordained  by  God?" 

Luther  clearly  insists  on  obedience  being  ren- 
dered in  all  doubtful  cases.  While  roundly  denoun- 
cing rulers,  at  times,  as  incapable  and  unworthy,1 
he  maintains  that  the  office  must  be  respected 
and  obedience  in  all  legitimate  affairs  must  be 
rendered.  That  is  to  say,  an  unworthy  person 
holding  a  post  of  civil  authority  must  be  respected, 
not  necessarily  as  an  individual,  but  as  a  represen- 
tative of  the  government.  In  a  sermon  on  Tribute 
to  C&sar,  based  on  the  words,  "  Render  therefore 
unto  Caesar  the  things  which  are  Caesar's,  and 
unto  God  the  things  that  are  God's,"  he  says: 

With  the  words  of  this  text  Christ  praised  civil 
authority,  and  commanded  that  men  give  it  what 
belongs  to  it.  He  here  clearly  confirms  civil  author- 
ity, princes,  and  lords,  to  whom  men  are  to  be  obedi- 

»  "From  the  beginning  of  the  world,"  Luther  says,  "an 
intelligent  prince  has  been  a  rare  bird,  and  a  pious  one  a  still 
rarer.  They  are  usually  the  greatest  fools  or  the  worst 
scoundrels  on  earth. "  Von  weltlicher  Oberkeit,  wie  weit 
man  ihr  Gehorsam  schuldig  sei  (1523).  Weimar  ed.,  n., 
Band,  229  et  seq. 


104  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

ent,  whoever  they  may  be  and  whatever  they  may  be, 
without  regard  to  whether  they  possess  or  use  the 
rule  and  authority  righteously  or  wrongfully.  There 
must  be  regard  only  to  their  power  and  authority, 
for  it  is  good,  inasmuch  as  it  has  been  ordained  of  God 
(See  Romans  xiii.,  i).  Civil  authority  must  not  be 
reviled  because  princes  and  tyrants  may  oppress 
their  subjects  and  misuse  their  God-given  office. 
They  will  surely  be  required  to  render  an  account 
thereof.  The  abuse  of  a  thing  does  not  make  a 
thing  evil  that  is  itself  good.  A  gold  chain  is  good, 
and  is  not  made  worse  because  it  is  worn  on  a  har- 
lot's neck.  If  a  person  should  destroy  my  eye  with 
one,  would  I  blame  the  chain  for  it?  Certainly  not. 

In  like  manner  must  we  endure  the  authority  of 
the  prince.  If  he  misuse  or  abuse  his  authority, 
we  are  not  to  entertain  a  grudge,  seek  revenge  or 
punishment.  Obedience  is  to  be  rendered  for  God's 
sake,  for  the  ruler  is  God's  representative.  However 
they  may  tax  or  exact,  we  must  obey  and  endure 
patiently.  It  will  duly  appear  whether  they  rule 
with  right  or  not. 

St.  Paul  expresses  the  duty  of  the  subject  to  civil 
government  beautifully  and  clearly:  "Let  every 
soul  be  subject  unto  the  higher  powers,  for  there  is 
no  power  but  of  God.  The  powers  that  be  are  or- 
dained of  God.  Whosoever  therefore  resisteth  the 
power,  resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God :  and  they  that 
resist  shall  receive  to  themselves  damnation.  For 
rulers  are  not  a  terror  to  good  works,  but  to  the  evil. 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State      105 

Wilt  thou  then  not  be  afraid  of  the  power?  Do 
that  which  is  good,  and  thou  shalt  have  praise  of  the 
same;  for  he  is  the  minister  of  God  to  thee  for  good. 
But  if  thou  do  that  which  is  evil,  be  afraid;  for  he 
beareth  not  the  sword  in  vain;  for  he  is  the  minister 
of  God,  a  revenger  to  execute  wrath  upon  him  that 
doeth  evil.  Wherefore  ye  must  needs  be  subject, 
not  only  for  wrath,  but  also  for  conscience'  sake.  For 
for  this  cause  pay  ye  tribute  also :  for  they  are  God's 
ministers,  attending  continually  upon  this  very  thing. 
Render  therefore  to  all  their  dues:  tribute  to  whom 
tribute  is  due;  custom  to  whom  custom;  fear  to 
whom  fear;  honour  to  whom  honour."1 

To  this  end  is  civil  authority  instituted  of  God,  to 
maintain  public  peace,  which  of  itself  is  of  greater 
value  than  all  estate  in  the  entire  world.2 

Spinoza,  maintaining  a  view  similar  to  that 
of  Luther  on  this  point,  held,  as  Professor  Duff 
shows,  that  "disobedience  to  a  civil  order  which 
maintains  a  stable  system  of  right  and  duty  is 
never  virtuous;  nor  has  any  man  a  right  to  refuse 
to  recognise  a  law  because  he  thinks  he  knows 
a  better  end  or  ideal."3 

1  Romans  xin.,  1—7. 

2  Kirchen-Postille :   Am  dreiundzwanzigsten  ^^ntage  nach 
Trinitatis,  Matt,  xxii.,  15-22:  "Gebet  dem  KalSk-,  was  des 
Kaisers  1st,  und  Gotte,  was  Gottes  ist.  "     Walch  ed.,  xi.,  1802 
et  seq. 

3  Duff:  Spinoza's  Political  and  Ethical  Philosophy,  p.  497. 


io6  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

Luther  holds  that  Christians,  as  members  of 
the  state,  are  bound  to  take  up  arms  in  defence 
of  their  rulers,  when  these  are  unlawfully  attacked ; 
and  when  oppressed,  or  directed  to  do  wrong,  they 
are  to  maintain  an  attitude  of  "  passive  resist- 
ance," or  " passive  obedience,"  which  may  mean 
the  same  thing;  that  is,  while  not  openly  refusing 
to  obey,  and  not  actively  resisting  the  government, 
they  endure  with  patience  what  is  forced  on  them 
and  make  the  most  of  it.  "  Christians  may  not 
resist,  but  suffer,  though  they  shall  not  approve 
or  serve."1  They  will  suffer  wrong  from  the 
government,  but  will  not  do  wrong  to  it  or  for  it. 
It  is  only  when  the  civil  authority  commands  the 
performance  of  something  expressly  or  explicitly 
contrary  to  the  word  of  God  that  the  subject 
has  a  right  to  dispute,  oppose,  or  disobey  its 
authority. 

»  Von  weltlicher  Oberkeit,  wie  weit  man  ihr  Gehorsam  schul- 
dig  sei  (1523).  Weimar  ed.,  n  Band,  229  et  seq. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  SOVEREIGNTY  OP  THE  STATE 

B.     Viewed  Externally 

A  NOTHER  element  of  sovereignty  is  inde- 
i\  pendence  of  the  authority  of  any  external 
or  foreign  influence  or  power,  ecclesiastical  or 
civil1;  for  no  state  which  is  not  independent  can 
have  a  law  of  its  own.2  "If  a  state  is  compelled 
to  recognise  the  political  superiority  of  another, 
it  loses  its  sovereignty,  and  becomes  subjected 
to  the  sovereignty  of  the  latter."3  If,  upon  any 
single  point,  however  insignificant,  the  state's 
own  will  be  not  final,  but  is  legally  dependent 
upon  the  consent  of  another  power,  its  sovereignty 
is  destroyed.4 

One  of  the  most  marked  features  of  Luther's 
work  was  his  call  for  an  absolute  resistance  on 

1  See  M'Kechnie:  The  State  and  the  Individual,  p.  129. 

2  See  Wilson:  The  State,  p.  609. 

3  Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  475. 

4  Willoughby:  An  Examination  of  the  Nature  of  the  State, 
p.  196. 

107 


io8  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

the  part  of  the  rulers  of  Germany  to  foreign  inter- 
ference in  their  own  temporal  affairs.  It  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  it  was  just  at  this  time 
that  Sylvester  Mazzolini  de  Prierio,  the  master 
of  the  sacred  palace,  published  a  work  in  which 
he  declared  that  the  decision  of  all  controversies 
belongs  to  the  pope  alone,  and  that  the  pope  is 
the  first  of  all  ecclesiastical  princes,  the  father 
of  all  secular  rulers,  the  chief  of  the  world,  and 
essentially  the  world  itself.1  The  same  writer 
elsewhere  affirms  that  the  pope  is  as  much  superior 
to  the  emperor  as  gold  is  more  precious  than  lead2 ; 
that  the  pope  may  elect  and  depose  both  emperors 
and  electors,  establish  and  annul  positive  rights; 
and  that  the  emperor,  though  backed  by  all  the 
laws  and  nations  of  Christendom,  cannot  decide 
the  least  thing  against  the  pope's  will.  This  was 
a  voice  from  the  pope's  own  palace.3 

In  his  Appeal  to  the  German  Nobility  f  Luther 

1  "Caput  orbis  et  consequenter  orbis  totus  in  virtute.     De 
juridica  et  irrefragabili  veritate  Romanse  Ecclesiae.  "     Bibl. 
Max.,  19,  cap.  4. 

2  "Papa  est  imperatore  major  dignitate  plus quam aurum 
plombo. "     De  Papa  et  ejus  potestate,  p.  371. 

3  D'Aubigne:  History  of  the  Reformation  of  the  Sixteenth 
Century,  ii.,  116,  117. 

*  An  den  christlichen  Adel  deutscher  Nation  von  des  christ- 
lichen  Standes  Besserung  (1520).  Weimar  ed.,  6  Band,  381 
et  seq.  Waceand  Buchheim:  Luther's  Primary  Works,  p.  161 
et  seq. 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State      109 

goes  into  a  detailed  statement  of  the  manner  and 
ways  in  which  the  ecclesiastical  power  of  Rome 
had  been  interfering  with  Germany's  rights  and 
liberties,  as  he  conceived  them.  He  declared 
there  was  neither  right  nor  reason  in  the  exactions 
and  claims  of  the  pope  and  the  Church  of  Rome 
over  the  German  people.  He  says  in  this  appeal : 
* '  I  think  Germany  now  pays  more  to  the  pope  than 
it  formerly  paid  to  the  emperors;  nay,  some  think 
more  than  300,000  guilders  are  sent  from  Germany 
to  Rome  every  year,  for  nothing  whatever;  and  in 
return  we  are  scoffed  at  and  put  to  shame.  Do  we 
still  wonder  why  princes,  noblemen,  cities,  founda- 
tions, convents,  and  people  grow  poor?  We  should 
rather  wonder  that  we  have  anything  left  to  eat." 
In  the  same  appeal,  he  charges  that  the  popes 
had  been  receiving  annates  (that  is,  half  of  the 
first  year's  income  from  every  benefice)  from  all 
German  benefices  for  more  than  a  century,  for 
the  declared  purpose  of  protecting  Christendom 
against  the  Turks  and  Infidels,  but  misappro- 
priated it  for  the  payment  of  thousands  of  posts 
and  offices  at  Rome.  He  makes  the  following 
assertions  and  recommendations : 

Whenever  there  is  any  pretence  of  fighting  the 
Turks,  they  send  out  some  commission  for  collecting 
money,  and  often  send  out  indulgences  under  the 


no  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

same  pretext  of  fighting  the  Turks.  They  think 
we  Germans  will  always  remain  such  great  and  inveter- 
ate fools  that  we  will  go  on  giving  money  to  satisfy 
their  unspeakable  greed,  though  we  see  plainly  that 
neither  annates,  nor  absolution  money,  nor  any 
other — not  one  farthing — goes  against  the  Turks,  but 
all  goes  into  the  bottomless  sack.  They  lie  and 
deceive,  form  and  make  covenants  with  us,  of  which 
they  do  not  mean  to  keep  one  jot.  And  all  this  is 
done  in  the  holy  name  of  Christ  and  St.  Peter. 

This  being  so,  the  German  nation,  the  bishops 
and  princes,  should  remember  that  they  are  Christians, 
and  should  defend  the  people,  who  are  committed  to 
their  government  and  protection  in,  temporal  and 
spiritual  affairs,  from  these  ravenous  wolves  in 
sheep's  clothing,  who  profess  to  be  shepherds  and 
rulers;  and  since  the  annates  are  so  shamefully 
abused,  and  the  covenants  concerning  them  not 
carried  out,  they  should  not  suffer  their  lands  and 
people  to  be  so  piteously  and  unrighteously  flayed  and 
ruined;  but  by  an  imperial  or  national  law  they  should 
either  retain  the  annates  in  the  country,  or  abolish 
them  altogether.  For  since  the  popes  do  not  keep 
the  covenant,  they  have  no  right  to  the  annates. 
Therefore  bishops  and  princes  are  bound  to  punish 
this  thievery  and  robbery,  or  prevent  it,  as  justice 
demands.  .  .  .  Even  if  it  were  proposed  to  collect 
any  such  treasure  for  use  against  the  Turks,  we  should 
be  wise  in  future,  and  remember  that  the  German 
nation  is  more  fitted  to  take  charge  of  it  than  the  pope, 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State      in 

seeing  that  the  German  nation  by  itself  is  able  to  pro- 
vide men  enough,  if  the  money  is  forth-coming.  .  .  . 
Moreover,  the  year  has  been  divided  among  the 
pope  and  the  ruling  bishops  and  foundations  in  such 
a  way  that  the  pope  has  taken  every  other  month — 
six  in  all — to  give  away  the  benefices  that  fall  in 
his  month.  In  this  manner  almost  all  the  benefices 
are  drawn  into  the  hands  of  Rome,  and  especially 
the  best  livings  and  dignities.  And  those  that  once 
fall  into  the  hands  of  Rome  never  come  out  again, 
even  though  they  never  again  fall  vacant  in  the 
pope's  month.  In  this  way  the  foundations  come 
very  short  of  their  rights,  and  it  is  a  downright  rob- 
bery, the  object  of  which  is  not  to  give  up  anything 
again.  Therefore  it  is  now  high  time  to  abolish  the 
pope's  months  and  to  take  back  again  all  that  has 
thereby  fallen  into  the  hands  of  Rome ;  for  all  the 
princes  and  nobles  should  insist  that  the  stolen 
property  be  returned,  the  thieves  punished,  and  that 
those  who  abuse  their  powers  shall  be  deprived  of 
them.  If  the  pope  can  make  a  law  on  the  day  after 
his  election  by  which  he  takes  our  benefices  and 
livings  to  which  he  has  no  right,  the  Emperor  Charles 
should  so  much  the  more  have  a  right  to  issue  a 
law  for  all  Germany  on  the  day  after  his  coronation 
that  in  future  no  livings  and  benefices  are  to  fall  to 
Rome  by  virtue  of  the  pope's  month,  but  that  those 
that  have  so  fallen  are  to  be  freed  and  taken  from  the 
Romish  robbers.  This  right  he  possesses  authorita- 
tively by  virtue  of  his  temporal  sword. 


ii2  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

Luther  then  describes  other  methods  employed 
by  the  pope  of  taking  livings  and  benefices,  of 
raising  funds  by  means  of  the  pallium,  commen- 
dams,  the  glosses  or  incorporations  of  incom- 
patible benefices,  and  other  measures. 

Meanwhile  [he  continues]  since  this  devilish  state 
of  things  is  not  only  an  open  robbery,  deceit,  and 
tyranny  of  the  gates  of  hell,  but  also  destroys  Chris- 
tianity, body  and  soul,  we  are  bound  to  use  all  our 
diligence  to  prevent  this  misery  and  destruction  of 
Christendom.  If  we  wish  to  fight  the  Turks,  let 
us  begin  here,  where  they  are  worst.  If  we  justly 
hang  thieves  and  behead  robbers,  why  do  we  leave 
unpunished  the  greed  of  Rome,  that  is  the  greatest 
thief  and  robber  that  has  appeared  or  can  appear 
on  earth,  and  does  all  this  in  the  holy  name  of  Christ 
and  St.  Peter?  Who  can  suffer  this  and  be  silent 
about  it?  Almost  everything  that  they  possess  has 
been  stolen  or  got  by  robbery,  as  we  learn  from  all 
histories.  Why,  the  pope  never  bought  those  great 
possessions,  so  as  to  be  able  to  raise  well-nigh  ten- 
hundred  thousand  ducats  from  his  ecclesiastical 
offices,  without  counting  his  gold  mines  and  his  land. 
He  did  not  inherit  this  wealth  from  Christ  and  St. 
Peter.  No  one  gave  it  to  him  or  loaned  it  to  him. 
He  has  not  acquired  it  by  prescription.  Tell  me, 
where  can  he  have  got  it?  You  can  learn  from  this 
what  their  object  is  when  the  popes  send  out  legates 
to  collect  money  to  be  used  against  the  Turk. 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State      113 

Among  the  reforms  he  proposes  and  sets  forth 
in  this  lengthy  treatise,  Luther  urges  that  the 
princes,  nobles,  and  cities  should  promptly  forbid 
their  subjects  to  pay  the  annates  to  Rome  and 
should  even  abolish  them  altogether.  He  sets 
forth  the  condition  of  affairs  and  the  need  for 
action  in  the  following  words: 

The  pope  has  broken  the  compact,  and  turned  the 
annates  into  robbery  for  the  harm  and  shame  of 
the  German  nation.  He  gives  them  to  his  friends. 
He  sells  them  for  large  sums  of  money,  and  founds 
benefices  on  them.  Therefore,  he  has  forfeited  his 
right  to  them,  and  deserves  punishment.  In  this 
way  the  temporal  power  should  protect  the  innocent 
and  prevent  wrong-doing,  as  we  are  taught  by  St. 
Paul  (Romans  xiii.)  and  by  St.  Peter  (i  Peter  ii.), 
and  even  by  the  canon  law  (16  q.  7,  de  Filiis).  That 
is  why  we  say  to  the  pope  and  his  followers,  Tu  or  a  ! 
"Thou  shalt  pray";  to  the  emperor  and  his  followers, 
Tu  protege!  "Thou  shalt  protect";  to  the  commons, 
Tu  labor  a!  "Thou  shalt  work.  "  Not  that  each  man 
should  not  pray,  protect,  and  work;  for  if  a  man  fulfils 
his  duty,  that  is  prayer,  protection,  and  work;  but 
every  man  must  have  his  proper  task. 

Since,  by  means  of  those  Romish  tricks,  commen- 
dams,  coadjutors,  reservations,  expectations,  pope's 
months,  incorporations,  unions,  palls,  rules  of  chancel- 
lery, and  other  such  knaveries,  the  pope  takes  unlawful 
possession  of  all  German  foundations,  to  give  and 

8 


ii4  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

sell  them  to  strangers  at  Rome,  profiting  Germany 
in  no  way,  so  that  the  incumbents  are  robbed  of  their 
rights,  and  the  bishops  are  made  mere  ciphers  and 
anointed  idols;  and  thus,  besides  natural  justice  and 
reason,  the  pope's  own  canon  law  is  violated; 
and  things  have  come  to  such  a  pass  that  prebends 
and  benefices  are  sold  at  Rome  to  vulgar,  ignorant 
asses  and  knaves,  out  of  sheer  greed,  while  pious, 
learned  men  have  no  profit  by  their  merit  and  skill, 
whereby  the  unfortunate  German  people  must  needs 
lack  good,  learned  prelates  and  suffer  ruin; — on 
account  of  these  evils  the  Christian  nobility  should 
rise  up  against  the  pope  as  a  common  enemy  and 
destroyer  of  Christianity,  for  the  sake  of  the  salvation 
of  the  poor  souls  that  such  tyranny  must  ruin.  They 
should  ordain,  order,  and  decree  that  henceforth  no 
benefice  shall  be  drawn  away  to  Rome,  and  that  no 
benefice  shall  be  claimed  there  in  any  fashion  what- 
soever; and  after  having  once  got  these  benefices  out 
of  the  hands  of  Romish  tyranny,  they  must  be  kept 
from  them,  and  their  lawful  incumbents  must  be 
reinstated  in  them  to  administer  them  as  best  they 
may  within  the  German  nation.  And  if  a  courtling 
come  from  Rome,  he  should  receive  the  strict  com- 
mand to  withdraw,  or  to  leap  into  the  Rhine,  or 
whatever  river  be  nearest,  and  to  administer  a  cold 
bath  to  the  interdict,  seal  and  letters  and  all.  Thus 
those  at  Rome  would  learn  that  we  Germans  are  not 
to  remain  drunken  fools  forever  but  that  we,  too,  are 
become  Christians,  and  that  as  such  we  will  no  longer 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State     115 

suffer  this  shameful  mockery  of  Christ's  holy  name, 
that  serves  as  a  cloak  for  such  knavery  and  destruc- 
tion of  souls,  and  that  we  shall  respect  God  and  the 
glory  of  God  more  than  the  power  of  men. 

It  should  be  decreed  by  an  imperial  law  that  no 
Episcopal  cloak  and  no  confirmation  of  any  appoint- 
ment shall,  for  the  future,  be  obtained  from  Rome. 
The  order  of  the  most  holy  and  renowned  Nicene 
Council  must  again  be  restored,  namely  that  a  bishop 
must  be  confirmed  by  the  two  nearest  bishops  or  by 
the  archbishop.  ...  , 

Let  it  be  decreed  that  no  temporal  matter  shall  ^ 
be  submitted  to  Rome,  but  that  all  shall  be  left  to  the  <y 
jurisdiction  of  the  civil  authorities.     This  is  part  oiv, 
their  own  canon  law,  though  they  do  not  obey  it.  S 
.  .  .  For  all  countries  suffer  unbearable  damage 
this  practice  of  settling  such  matters  at  Rome,  since 
it  involves  great  expense;  and,  besides  this,  the  judges     \ 
at  Rome,  not  knowing  the  manners,  laws,  and  customs 
of  other  countries,   frequently   pervert   the  matter      / 
according  to  their  own  laws  and  their  own  opinions,      / 
thus  causing  injustice  to  all  parties.     Besides  this, 
we  should  prohibit  in  all  foundations  the  grievous      . 
extortion  of  the  ecclesiastical  judges.     They  should  * 
only  be  allowed  to  consider  matters  concerning  f 
and  good  morals;  but  matters  concerning  money, 
property,  life,  and  honour  should  be  left  to  the  tem- 
poral    judges.     Therefore    the    temporal    authorities      / 
should   not   permit   excommunication   or   expulsion   y 
except  in  matters  of  faith  and  righteous  living.  .  .  . 


n6  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

Henceforth  no  reservations  should  be  valid  and 
no  benefices  should  be  appropriated  by  Rome,  whether 
the  incumbent  die  there,  or  there  be  a  dispute,  or  the 
incumbent  be  a  servant  of  the  pope  or  of  a  cardinal; 
and  all  courtiers  should  be  strictly  prohibited  and 
prevented  from  causing  a  dispute  about  any  benefice 
so  as  to  cite  the  pious  priests,  to  trouble  them,  and 
to  drive  them  to  pay  compensation.  And  if,  in 
consequence  of  this,  there  comes  an  interdict  from 
Rome,  let  it  be  despised,  just  as  if  a  thief  were  to 
excommunicate  any  man  because  he  would  not 
allow  him  to  steal  in  peace.  .  .  . 

The  cases  reserved  (casus  reservati)  should  be 
abolished,  by  which  not  only  are  the  people  cheated 
out  of  much  money,  but,  besides,  many  poor  con- 
sciences are  confused  and  led  into  error  by  the  ruthless 
tyrants,  to  the  intolerable  harm  of  their  faith  in 
God.  .  .  . 

The  terrible  oaths  must  be  abolished  which  bishops 
are  forced,  without  any  right,  to  swear  to  the  pope, 
by  which  they  are  bound  like  servants.  ...  Is  it 
not  enough  that  they  oppress  us  in  goods,  body, 
and  soul  by  all  their  mad  laws,  by  which  they  have 
weakened  faith  and  destroyed  Christianity?  But 
.must  they  now  take  possession  of  the  very  persons 
of  bishops,  with  their  offices  and  functions,  and  also 
claim  the  investiture,  which  used  formerly  to  be  the 
right  of  the  German  emperors,  and  is  still  the  right  of 
the  king  in  France  and  other  kingdoms  ?  This  matter 
caused  many  wars  and  disputes  with  the  emperors  until 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State      117 

the  popes  impudently  took  the  power  by  force,  since 
which  time  they  have  retained  it,  just  as  if  it  were 
only  right  for  the  Germans,  above  all  Christians  on 
earth,  to  be  the  fools  of  the  pope  and  the  Holy  See, 
and  to  do  and  suffer  what  no  one  else  would  suffer 
or  do.  Seeing  then  that  this  is  mere  arbitrary  power, 
robbery,  and  a  hindrance  to  the  exercise  of  the  bishop's 
ordinary  power,  and  to  the  injury  of  poor  souls, 
therefore  it  is  the  duty  of  the  emperor  and  his  nobles 
to  prevent  and  punish  this  tyranny.  / 

The  pope  should  have  no  power  over  the  emperor,*/ 
except  to  anoint  and  crown  him  at  the  altar,  as  a 
bishop  crowns  a  king;  nor  should  that  devilish  pomp 
be  allowed  that  the  emperor  should  kiss  the  pope's 
feet,  or  sit   at  his   feet,   or,  as  it  is  said,  hold  his 
stirrup  or  the  reins  of  his  mule,  when  he  mounts 
to  ride.     Much  less  should  he  pay  homage  to  the    y/ 
pope  or  swear  allegiance,  as  is  impudently  demanded^ 
by  the  popes,  as  if  they  had  a  right  to  it.  ... 

It  is  not  meet  that  the  pope  should  exalt  himself  */ 
above  temporal  authority,  except  in  spiritual  matters,  \/ 
such  as  preaching  and  absolution.     In  other  matters,^ 
he  should  be  subject  to  it,  according  to  the  teaching!/ 
of  St.  Paul  (Romans  xiii.)  and  St.  Peter  (i  Peter  in.), I/ 
as  I  have  said  above.  .  .  . 

It  is  absurd  and  puerile  for  the  pope  to  boast  for 
such  blind,  foolish  reasons,  in  his  decretal  Pastorates, 
that  he  is  the  rightful  heir  to  the  empire,  if  the  throne 
be  vacant.  Who  gave  it  to  him?  ...  It  disgusts 
me  that  we  have  to  read  and  teach  such  impudent, 


n8  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

clumsy,  foolish  lies  in  the  canon  law,  and,  moreover, 
to  take  them  for  Christian  doctrine,  while  in  reality 
they  are  mere  devilish  lies.  Of  this  kind,  also,  is 
the  unheard-of  lie  touching  the  "Donation  of  Con- 
stantine. "...  The  pope  wishes  to  rule  an  empire, 
•^N  and  to  remain  a  pope.  .  .  . 

\  J  The  pope  must  withdraw  his  hand  from  the  dish, 
•and  on  no  pretence  assume  royal  authority  over 
Naples  and  Sicily.  He  has  no  more  right  to  them 
than  I,  and  yet  claims  to  be  the  lord — their  liege 
lord.  They  have  been  taken  by  force  and  robbery, 
like  almost  all  his  other  possessions.  Therefore, 
the  emperor  should  grant  him  no  such  fief,  nor  any 
longer  allow  him  those  he  has,  but  direct  him  instead 
to  his  bibles  and  prayer  books,  so  that  he  may  leave 
the  government  of  countries  and  peoples  to  the 
temporal  power,  especially  of  those  that  no  one  has 
*  given  him.  Let  him  rather  preach  and  pray.  The 
same  should  be  done  with  Bologna,  Imola,  Vicenza, 
Ravenna,  and  whatever  the  pope  has  taken  by  force 
and  holds  without  right  in  the  Ancontine  territory, 
in  the  Romagna,  and  other  parts  of  Italy.  .  .  . 

The  civil  law,  too,  good  God!  What  a  wilderness 
it  has  become!  It  is  indeed  much  better,  more  skil- 
ful, and  more  honest  than  the  canon  law,  of  which 
nothing  is  good  but  the  name.1  Still,  there  is  far 

»  Luther  denied  the  binding  validity  of  the  canon  law,  for 
he  felt  that  it  exhibited  an  incongruous  confusion  of  matters 
spiritual  and  temporal  by  attaching  a  legal  sanction  to 
whatever  the  authorities  of  the  church  had  declared  to  be 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State      119 

too  much  of  it.  Surely  good  governors,  in  addition 
to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  would  be  law  enough,  as 
St.  Paul  says:  "Is  it  so,  that  there  is  not  a  wise  man 
among  you?  no,  not  one  that  shall  be  able  to  judge 
between  his  brethren?"1  I  think  also  that  the  com- 
mon law  and  the  usage  of  the  country  should  be 
preferred  to  the  law  of  the  empire,  and  that  the  law 
of  the  empire  should  only  be  used  in  cases  of  neces- 
sity. And  would  to  God  that,  as  each  land  has  its 
own  peculiar  character  and  nature,  they  could  all  be 
governed  by  their  own  simple  laws,  just  as  they 
governed  before  the  law  oF"ttie~empire  was  devised, 
and  as  many  are  governed  even  now!  Elaborate 
and  far-fetched  laws  are  only  burdensome  to  the 
people,  and  a  hindrance  rather  than  a  help  to  business. 
But  I  hope  that  others  have  thought  of  this,  and 
considered  it  to  better  purpose  than  I  can.  .  .  . 

I  know  full  well  that  the  Romish  mob  will  object 
and  loudly  pretend  that  the  pope  took  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire  from  the  Greek  Emperor  and  gave 
it  to  Germany,  for  which  honour  and  favour  he  is 
supposed  to  deserve  submission  and  thanks  and  all 
other  kinds  of  returns  from  the  Germans.  For  this 


binding  on  the  conscience.  He  denounced  as  brutal  and 
unchristian  the  doctrine  that  a  violation  of  the  canons 
entails  the  loss  of  salvation.  Geffcken:  Church  and  State,  i., 

3°3- 

It  was  but  natural  that,  feeling  as  he  did,  he  should  cast  a 
copy  of  these  laws  into  the  flames  when  he  burned  the  papal 
bull  excommunicating  him. 

1  /  Corinthians  vi.,  5. 


120  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

reason  they  will  perhaps  assume  to  oppose  all  at- 
tempts to  reform  them,  and  will  let  no  regard  be  paid 
to  anything  but  those  "donations"  of  the  Roman 
Empire.  This  is  also  the  reason  why  they  have  so 
arbitrarily  and  proudly  persecuted  and  oppressed 
many  good  emperors,  so  that  it  were  pity  to  tell, 
and  with  the  same  cleverness  have  they  made  them- 
selves lords  of  all  the  temporal  power  and  authority, 
in  violation  of  the  Holy  Gospel;  and  accordingly 
I  must  speak  of  this  matter  also. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  true  Roman  Empire, 
of  which  the  prophets  (Numbers  xxiv.,  24  and  Daniel 
ii.,  44)  spoke,  was  long  ago  destroyed,  as  Balaam 
clearly  foretold,  saying:  "And  ships  shall  come  from 
the  coast  of  Chittim  and  shall  afflict  Asshur,  and 
shall  afflict  Eber,  and  he  also  shall  perish  forever."1 
And  this  was  done  by  the  Goths,  and  more  especially 
since  the  empire  of  the  Turks  was  formed,  about  one 
thousand  years  ago,  and  so  gradually  Asia  and  Africa 
were  lost,  and  subsequently  France,  Spain,  and 
finally  Venice  arose,  so  that  Rome  retains  no  part 
of  its  former  power. 

Since,  then,  the  pope  could  not  force  the  Greeks 
and  the  emperor  at  Constantinople,  who  is  the 
hereditary  Roman  emperor,  to  obey  his  will,  he 
invented  this  device  to  rob  him  of  his  empire  and 
title,  and  to  give  it  to  the  Germans,  who  were  at 
that  time  strong  and  of  good  repute,  in  order  that 
they  might  take  the  power  of  the  Roman  Empire 

i  Numbers  xxiv.,  24. 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State      121 

and  hold  it  of  the  pope;  and  this  is  actually  what 
happened.  It  was  taken  from  the  emperor  at 
Constantinople,  and  the  name  and  title  were  given 
to  us  Germans,  and  therewith  we  became  subject  to 
the  pope,  and  he  has  built  up  a  new  Roman  Empire 
on  the  Germans.  For  the  other  empire,  the  original, 
came  to  an  end  long  ago,  as  said  above. 

Thus  the  Roman  See  has  got  what  it  wished. 
Rome  has  been  taken  possession  of,  and  the  German 
emperor  driven  out  and  bound  by  oaths  not  to 
dwell  in  Rome.  He  is  to  be  Roman  emperor  and 
nevertheless  not  to  dwell  in  Rome,  and,  moreover, 
always  to  depend  on  the  pope  and  his  followers,  and 
to  do  their  will.  We  are  to  have  the  title,  and  they 
are  to  have  the  lands  and  the  cities.  For  they  have 
always  made  our  simplicity  the  tool  of  their  pride 
and  tyranny,  and  they  consider  us  as  stupid  Germans, 
to  be  deceived  and  fooled  by  them  as  they  choose.  .  .  . 

Now,  although  the  pope  has  violently  and  unjustly 
robbed  the  true  emperor  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
or  its  name,  and  has  given  it  to  us  Germans,  yet  it  is 
certain  that  God  has  used  the  pope's  wickedness 
to  give  the  German  nation  this  empire  and  to  raise 
up  a  new  Roman  Empire,  that  exists  now,  after  the 
fall  of  the  old  empire.  We  gave  the  pope  no  cause 
for  this  action,  nor  did  we  understand  his  false  aims 
and  schemes;  but  still,  through  the  craft  and  knavery 
of  the  popes,  we  have,  alas,  all  too  dearly,  paid  the 
price  of  this  empire  with  incalculable  bloodshed, 
with  the  loss  of  our  liberty,  with  the  robbery  of  our 


122  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

wealth,  especially  of  our  churches  and  benefices, 
and  with  unspeakable  treachery  and  insult.  We  have 
the  empire  in  name,  but  the  pope  has  our  wealth, 
our  honour,  our  bodies,  lives  and  souls,  and  all  that 
we  have.  This  was  the  way  to  deceive  the  Germans, 
and  to  deceive  them  by  shuffling.  What  the  popes 
wished  was  to  become  emperors ;  and,  as  they  could 
not  do  this,  they  put  themselves  above  the  emperors. 

Since,  then,  we  have  received  this  empire  through 
God's  providence  and  the  schemes  of  evil  men, 
without  our  fault,  I  would  not  advise  that  we  should 
give  it  up,  but  that  we  should  govern  it  honestly, 
in  the  fear  of  God,  as  long  as  He  is  pleased  to  let  us 
hold  it.  For,  as  I  have  said,  it  is  no  matter  to  Him 
how  a  kingdom  is  come  by,  but  He  will  have  it  duly 
governed.  If  the  popes  took  it  from  others  dishonestly, 
we  at  least  did  not  come  by  it  dishonestly.  It  was 
given  to  us  through  evil  men,  under  the  will  of  God,  to 
Whom  we  have  more  regard  than  the  false  intentions 
of  the  popes,  who  wished  to  be  emperors  and  more 
than  emperors,  and  to  fool  and  mock  us  with  the 
name. 

The  King  of  Babylon  obtained  his  kingdom  by 
force  and  robbery;  yet  God  would  have  it  governed 
by  the  holy  princes  Daniel,  Hananiah,  Azariah,  and 
Mishael.  Much  more,  then,  does  He  require  this 
empire  to  be  governed  by  the  Christian  princes  of 
Germany,  though  the  Pope  may  have  stolen,  or 
robbed,  or  newly  fashioned  it.  It  is  all  God's  order- 
ing, which  came  to  pass  before  we  knew  of  it. 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State     123 

Therefore  the  pope  and  his  followers  have  no  reason 
to  boast  that  they  did  a  great  kindness  to  the  German 
nation  in  giving  them  this  Roman  Empire;  first  of 
all,  because  they  intended  no  good  to  us  in  the  matter, 
but  only  abused  our  simplicity  to  strengthen  their 
own  power  against  the  Roman  emperor  at  Constanti- 
nople, from  whom,  against  God  and  justice,  the  pope 
has  taken  what  he  had  no  right  to. 

Secondly,  the  pope  sought  to  give  the  empire, 
not  to  us,  but  to  himself,  and  to  become  lord  over 
all  our  power,  liberty,  wealth,  body,  and  soul,  and 
through  us  over  all  the  world,  if  God  had  not  prevented 
it,  as  he  plainly  says  in  his  decretals,  and  has  tried, 
with  many  mischievous  tricks,  in  the  case  of  many 
German  emperors.  Thus  we  Germans  have  been 
taught  in  plain  German:  whilst  we  expected  to 
become  lords,  we  have  become  the  servants  of  the 
most  crafty  tyrants.  We  have  the  name,  title,  and 
arms  of  the  empire,  but  the  pope  has  its  treasure, 
authority,  law,  and  freedom.  Thus,  whilst  the  pope 
eats  the  kernel,  he  leaves  us  the  empty  shells  to 
play  with. 

Now  may  God  help  us  (Who,  as  I  have  said,  assigned 
us  this  kingdom  through  crafty  tyrants,  and  charged 
us  to  govern  it)  to  act  according  to  our  name, 
title,  and  arms,  and  to  secure  our  freedom,  and  thus 
let  the  Romans  see  at  last  what  we  have  received 
of  God  through  them.  If  they  boast  that  they  have 
given  us  an  empire,  well,  be  it  so,  by  all  means;  then 
let  the  pope  give  up  Rome,  all  he  has  of  the  empire, 


124  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

and  free  our  country  from  his  unbearable  taxes  and 
robberies,  and  give  back  to  us  our  liberty,  authority, 
wealth,  honour,  body  and  soul,  rendering  to  the 
empire  those  things  that  are  the  empire's,  so  as  to 
act  in  accordance  with  his  words  and  pretences.  .  .  . 
Let  the  German  emperor  be  a  true,  free  emperor, 
and  let  not  his  authority  or  his  sword  be  overborne 
by  these  blind  pretences  of  the  pope's  sycophants, 
as  if  they  were  to  be  exceptions,  and  be  above  the 
temporal  sword  in  all  things. 

Writing  against  the  Turks  nearly  a  score  of 
years  later,1  Luther  declares  that  the  civil  author- 1 
ity  is  under  obligations  to  restrain  those  who,  I 
without  right,  begin  war  and  rob  and  murder. 
This  kind  of  vengeance  is  not  forbidden,  for  St. 
Paul  says  that  rulers  are  avengers  of  God2;  that 
is,  instituted  and  commanded  by  Him.  Ven- 
geance which  is  not  taken  up  through  the  proper 
civil  authorities  or  by  their  direction  is  forbidden 
to  Christians.  These  contentions  he  elucidates 
as  follows : 

As  to  the  claim  that  the  faith  should  not  be  pro- 
tected by  the  sword,  but  people  should  suffer,  as 
Christ  and  the  apostles,  it  is  true  that  those  who  are 

1  Unterricht   der  Visitatoren   an   die  Pfarrherren  im  Chur- 
furstenthum  Sachsen  (1538).     Walch  ed.,  x.,  1671,  1672. 

2  Romans  xiii.,  4. 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State      125 

not  rulers  should  suffer,  each  for  himself,  and  not 
defend  themselves,  after  the  example  of  Christ. 
But  the  civil  authorities  should  protect  their  subjects 
against  wrongful  violence,  whether  offered  on  account 
of  faith  or  for  other  reason.  And  inasmuch  as  the 
civil  power  is  to  honour  good  works  and  punish  the 
wicked,  it  is  likewise  to  restrain  and  check  those 
who  seek  to  deprive  the  people  of  divine  worship, 
good  governmental  administration,  law,  and  justice. 
Therefore  we  are  under  obligations  to  defend  our- 
selves against  the  Turks,  who  seek  not  only  to  deso- 
late our  country  and  ravish  and  kill  our  women  and 
children,  but  also  to  take  away  the  law  of  the  land, 
divine  worship,  and  all  good  order,  so  that  the  sur- 
vivors would  not  be  secure  in  life,  nor  could  the 
children  be  raised  in  discipline  and  virtue. 

Were  there  no  Christian  faith,  it  would  be  necessary 
nevertheless  that  we  should  fight  the  Turks  for  the 
sake  of  wife  and  child.  For  we  were  better  dead  than 
to  witness  and  suffer  such  shame  as  would  be  ours. 
For  the  Turks  drive  people  to  market,  buy  and  sell 
them,  and  treat  them  like  cattle,  whether  man  or 
woman,  young  or  old,  maid  or  wife.  The  clergy 
should  exhort  the  people  to  pray  God  to  protect 
us  against  such  fanatics  and  tyrants,  and  instruct 
the  people  that  it  is  a  real  divine  service  to  fight 
against  such  a  foe,  at  the  bidding  and  under  the 
direction  of  the  civil  government. 

In  another  writing,  Luther  maintains  that  every 
judge  is  under  obligation  to  judge  in  accordance 


i26  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

with  the  laws  of  his  land.  The  Mosaic  code,  for 
example,  would  not  apply  to  the  German  nation.1 
Luther  thus  stood  (as  the  extracts  we  have 
given  from  his  writings  show)  for  a  united  Ger- 
many, with  a  government  by  the  Germans  and 
for  the  Germans,  as  against  all  foreign  interference 
or  domination.  His  is  one  of  the  strongest  pleas 
in  the  history  of  the  world  for  the  government 
of  the  people  of  one  race  by  their  own  rulers, 
without  hindrance  or  dictation  from  without. 
Credit  given  to  other  writers  on  this  subject 
belongs  to  him.2  His  Appeal  to  the  German 
Nobility  was  an  appeal  to  the  German  nobles 
to  resist  foreign  interference,  and  to  govern  their 

1  Bedenken  D.   M.  Luther  s,  dass  man  nach    Mo  sis  Recht 
nicht  urtheilen  noch  richten  solle.     Walch  ed.,  x.,  356. 

2  Mr.  Willoughby  asserts  that  outwardly,  in  its  relation 
with  other  powers,  the  state  appears  to  Bodin  as  independent 
and  free  from  external  legal  compulsion  of  any  sort  whatever. 
The  logical  result  of  this  position  was,  of  course,  to  render  the 
conception  of  sovereignty  necessarily  territorial  in  character, 
that  is,  as  exercisable  over  a  definite  portion  of  the  world's 
surface.  .  .  .  The  epoch-making  character  of  Bodin's  work 
is  seen,  continues  Mr.  Willoughby,  when  we  consider  the 
conceptions  that  had  prevailed  prior  to  his  time.     On  the  one 
hand  the  old  idea  of  the  universality  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
arid  the  alleged  supremacy  of  the  church  in  matters  temporal 
had  rendered  impossible  the  idea  of  sovereignty  as  including 
complete  state  independence.     Willoughby:  An  Examination 
of  the  Nature  of  the  State,  pp.  186,  187.     But  Luther's  writings 
show  he  had  this  conception  or  idea  before  Bodin. 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State     127 

own  lands.  The  fact  must  not  be  overlooked 
that  the  time  was  ripe  for  this  appeal  against 
foreign  interference,  dictation,  and  taxation. 
The  Imperial  Diet  had  not  only  considered  the 
subject  again  and  again,  but  drew  up  formal  state- 
ments concerning  it.  Emperor  Maximilian  himself, 
at  the  Diet  held  at  Augsburg  in  1510,  for  example, 
caused  a  more  detailed  and  distinct  statement 
of  the  grievances  of  the  German  nation  to  be 
drawn  up,  than  had  previously  existed.  He 
convoked  a  council,  of  which  the  church  stood  in 
such  great  need,  and  declared  that,  although 
Rome  delayed,  he  would  not.1 

Luther's  appeal  was  a  plea  on  behalf  of  a  people 
of  one  race  to  become  united  in  civil  government 
and  establish  a  national  state.  It  was,  indeed, 
the  first  definite  call  for  a  united  Germany.2 
While  it  did  not  lead  to  the  establishment  of  a 
unitary,  or  even  a  closely  confederated,  govern- 
ment of  the  German  people,  it  did  result  in  the 
throwing  off  of  the  foreign  yoke.  The  power  of 
the  electors  and  of  the  princes  in  their  respective 
territories  became  stronger  and  more  centralised, 
both  in  political  and  ecclesiastical  affairs.  Had 
the  German  people  at  that  time  stood  together, 
united  politically,  for  a  common  government, 

1  Ranke:  History  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany,  i.,  270. 

2  Lindsay:  Luther  and  the  German  Reformation,  pp.  107,  108. 


128  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

the  later  history  of  Europe  would  have  been 
vastly  different. 

Luther's  appeal  was  for  a  modern  state;  not 
the  ideal  world-empire,1  but  a  sovereign,  unitary, 
territorial  state  of  one  people, — the  national 
state,  as  the  most  natural,  the  most  homogeneous, 
the  most  stable,  and  the  most  successful.  The 
Florentine  Machiavelli  said,  centuries  ago:  "We 
owe  to  Rome  that  we  are  become  divided  and 
factious,  which  must  of  necessity  be  our  ruin, 
for  no  nation  was  ever  happy  or  united  unless 
under  the  rule  of  one  commonwealth  or  prince, 
as  France  and  Spain  are  at  this  time."2 

A  modern  writer  expresses  the  idea  and  the 
need  of  the  national  state  in  language  none-  too 
strong  when  he  says:  " Every  great  people  which  is 
fit  to  become  a  nation  and  a  state,  has  its  own  polit- 
ical point  of  view  and  its  own  special  function  as 
a  state,  and  this  cannot  be  fulfilled  unless  the 
nation  gives  to  the  state  the  impress  of  its  own 
character.  This  is  what  is  meant  by  the  natural 
right  of  a  nation  to  a  national  constitution  (volks- 
ikumliche  Verfassung) . "  3 

It  was  universally  felt  in  Luther's  day  that 
"it  was  high  time  that  Germany  should  be  consid- 

1  See  Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  32. 

2  Lindsay:  Luther  and  the  German  Reformation,  p.  119. 

3  Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  101. 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State     129 

ered  as  a  nation  with  one  national  language,  com- 
mon national  usages,  and  national  laws  which 
should  preserve  individual  rights  and  liberties 
unknown  to  the  Roman  law,  which  was  super- 
seding the  old  usages."1  The  peasants,  in  their 
more  elaborate  manifestoes  and  demands,  urged, 
among  other  things,  an  organised  imperial  admin- 
istration, with  communal  courts  ascending  to  an 
imperial  court.  They  sought  a  uniform  system 
of  coinage,  weights  and  measures,  and  taxes 
and  customs  dues  throughout  the  empire.  In 
every  case,  the  emperor  was  looked  upon  as 
lord-paramount.2  The  awakened  feeling  of  Ger- 
man nationality  was  driven  into  hostility  to  an 
institution  whose  title  and  history  bound  it  to 
the  centre  of  foreign  tyranny.  "After  exulting 
for  seven  centuries  in  the  heritage  of  Roman 
rule,  half  of  the  nation  cherished  again  the  feeling 
with  which  their  ancestors  had  resisted  Julius 
Caesar  and  Germanicus." 3 

Had  Charles  V  stood  for  religious  liberty,  it  is 
not  too  much  to  say  that  the  government  of 
Germany  would  have  become  in  his  day  a  strong 
confederation,  if  not  a  compact  monarchy;  for 
the  Imperial  Diet  held  at  Worms  in  1521,  before 

1  Lindsay:  Luther  and  the  German  Reformation ,  p.  114. 
a  Lindsay:  A  History  of  the  Reformation,  i.,  333. 
»  Bryce:  The  Holy  Roman  Empire,  p.  385. 


130  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

which  Luther  made  his  plea  for  freedom  of  faith, 
had  a  new  plan  presented  for  the  establishment 
of  a  central  council  of  administration  or  govern- 
ment; for  this  was  the  era,  Mr.  Bryce  tells  us, 
of  the  first  conscious  feeling  of  German  nationality 
as  distinct  from  the  imperial.  Driven  in  on  all 
sides,  with  Italy  and  the  Slavic  lands  and  Bur- 
gundy hopelessly  lost,  Teutschland  learned  to 
separate  itself  from  Welschland.  The  .empire 
became  the  representative  of  a  narrower  but  more 
practical  national  union,  and  was  undoubtedly 
sinking  into  a  merely  German  power.1 

If  there  had  been  no  Holy  Roman  Empire  [says 
Mr.  Sidgwick],  if  the  German  king  had  had  no  further 
ambition  than  to  be  king  of  Germany,  if  he  had  not 
had  his  attention  continually  distracted  and  his 
resources  continually  exhausted  by  Italian  adven- 
tures— I  see  no  clear  reason  why  Germany  should  not 
have  attained  national  unity  under  a  king,  like  France 
and  Spain,  at  the  close  of  the  Middle  Ages;  and  at 
any  rate,  it  would  not  have  been  split  up  into  a  be- 
wildering profusion  of  principalities,  great  and  small, 
held  together  by  the  imperfect  bond  of  a  so-called 
empire,  as  we  find  it  when  modern  history  begins.2 

It  may  be  said,  with  stronger  reason,  that  if 
Frederick  the  Wise,  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  had 

1  Bryce:  The  Holy  Roman  Empire,  pp.  368-370. 

2  Sidgwick:  The  Development  of  European  Polity,  p.  196. 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State     131 

accepted  the  imperial  crown  when  proffered  to 
him,  as  history  assures  us  it  was  at  the  time  of 
the  election  of  Charles  V  in  1519,*  the  German 
people  would  have  become  a  united,  sovereign, 
and  independent  nation  generally  accepting  the 
political  doctrines  maintained  by  the  great  reform- 
er ;  for  Frederick  was  friendly  to  the  new  theories 
of  civil  government,  as  he  was  at  the  same  time 
most  kindly  disposed  towards  the  masses  of  the 
people  and  much  beloved  by  them.  As  emperor 
his  influence  would  have  been  very  great,  both 
as  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  national  state  and 
the  inalienable  civil  and  religious  rights  of  the 
individual. 

It  was  not  Luther,  nor  was  it  his  principles  of 
freedom  of  conscience  and  civil  and  religious 
liberty  that  put  an  end  to  all  prospects  for  a 
united  people  politically;  nor  was  it  popular 
opposition  to  the  new  faith.  Herr  von  Miltitz, 
a  Saxon  nobleman,  deputed  by  the  pope  in  1519 
to  endeavour  to  secure  submission  and  a  promise 
of  silence  from  Luther,  himself  acknowledged  to 
the  reformer  that  throughout  his  journey  in 
Germany  he  had  found  on  an  average  three  voices 
to  one  in  his  favour;  and  this  was  only  two  years 
after  Luther's  first  appearance  in  the  public  eye 
as  a  protestant  against  certain  teachings  and 

i  Lindsay:  Luther  and  the  German  Reformation,  p.  115. 


132  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

practices  of  Rome.  At  the  time  of  Luther's 
death  (1546),  Germany  was  almost  entirely 
Protestant.  According  to  a  report  made  by  the 
Venetian  ambassador  in  1557,  seven  tenths  of 
the  German  people  belonged  to  the  Lutheran 
faith,  two  tenths  to  the  Reformed  or  other  sects; 
and  one  tenth  only  remained  Roman  Catholic.1 

From  this  time  on,  a  different  attitude  was 
maintained  towards  the  emperor  by  the  different 
electors  and  princes  of  the  empire.  To  his  Pro- 
testant princes  and  people  he  was  merely  the 
titular  head  of  the  nation;  to  the  Catholics  he 
was  also  the  advocate  and  defender  of  their 
faith.2 

It  was  the  refusal  of  the  emperor  and  some  of 
the  princes  to  recognise  and  concede  to  others 
the  right  of  the  individual  conscience,  and  the 
rights  of  different,  virtually  sovereign  states;  it 
was  their  denial  of  the  doctrine  that  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  state  extends  over  every  individual 
within  its  boundaries,  and  that  it  is  the  only 
institution  possessing  coercive  authority;  it  was 
their  failure  or  refusal  to  assert  and  maintain 
k  their  own  sovereignty,  as  against  foreign  eccle- 
siastical and  civil  influence  and  power;  that  put  an 
end  to  the  bright  prospects  for  Germanic  unity. 

1  Geffcken:  Church  and  State,  i.,  317. 

2  Bryce:  The  Holy  Roman  Empire,  p.  385. 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  State      133 

Jealousies  between  the  princes  and  the  emperor, 
rivalries  among  the  different  princes  and  electors, 
hostility  between  the  secular  and  ecclesiastical 
members  of  the  empire,  oppression  of  the  weaker 
nobility  by  the  stronger,  were  elements  in  a 
situation  rendered  still  more  complex  by  differ- 
ences of  local  governments  and  aims.  Concerning 
these  various  and  repugnant  forms  of  civil  policy 
in  the  several  states  which  composed  the  Germanic 
body,  an  historian  says: 

It  is  no  easy  matter  to  render  the  union  of  inde- 
pendent states  perfect  and  entire,  even  when  the 
genius  and  forms  of  their  respective  governments 
happen  to  be  altogether  similar.  But  in  the  German 
empire,  which  was  a  confederacy  of  princes,  of  eccle- 
siastics, and  of  free  cities,  it  was  impossible  that  they 
could  incorporate  thoroughly.  The  free  cities  were 
small  republics,  in  which  the  maxims  and  spirit 
peculiar  to  that  species  of  government  prevailed. 
The  princes  and  nobles,  to  whom  supreme  jurisdiction 
belonged,  possessed  a  sort  of  monarchical  power 
within  their  own  territories,  and  the  forms  of  their 
interior  administration  nearly  resembled  those  of 
the  great  feudal  kingdoms.  The  interests,  the  ideas, 
the  objects  of  states  so  differently  constituted  can- 
not be  the  same.  Nor  could  their  common  delibera- 
tions be  carried  on  with  the  same  spirit,  while  the 
love  of  liberty,  and  attention  to  commerce,  were  the 
reigning  principles  in  the  cities,  while  the  desire  of 


134  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

power,  and  ardour  for  military  glory ,  were  the  govern- 
ing passions  of  the  princes  and  nobility.1 

Luther  certainly  cannot  be  censured  for  pro- 
posing and  urging  principles  recognised  and 
advocated  by  every  enlightened  people  in  the 
world  to-day,  whatever  may  have  been  the  course 
of  history  in  and  after  his  day.  In  spite  of  the 
fact  that  it  required  more  than  three  centuries 
to  bring  Germany  back  again  to  this  point, 
Luther 's  appeal  of  1520  eventually  won  lasting 
recognition.2  There  was  a  golden  opportunity 
in  his  day  for  the  sovereignty  of  the  state  in  the 
modern  sense;  but  the  Roman  See  continued  to 
be  sovereign,  as  against  civil  power,  in  those 
states  of  Germany  where  the  papal  supremacy 
was  recognised  by  the  ruling  secular  or  ecclesi- 
astical princes.  Had  it  been  dependent  on  a 
popular  vote  of  the  people  of  Germany,  of  and 
by  themselves,  probably  at  any  time  after  Luther's 
appearance  at  the  Diet  of  Worms  in  1521,  no 
such  foreign  interference,  dictation,  or  consid- 
eration— ecclesiastical  or  otherwise — would  have 
been  recognised  or  tolerated. 

1  Prescott:  Robertson's  History  of  the  Reign  of  the  Emperor 
Charles  V,  i.,  213,  214. 

2  It  is  strange  that  it  required  these  centuries  to  develop 
the  German  Empire, when  it  is  remembered  that  the  "Teuton 
really  dominates  the  world  by  his  superior  political  genius. " 
Burgess:  Political  Science  and  Constitutional  Law,  i.,  4. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  RIGHT  OF  REFORM  AND  REVOLUTION 

AN  essential  element  of  sovereignty,  it  has  been 
noted,  is  the  right  to  command  and  the 
power  to  enforce  the  command.  The  state  is  not 
sovereign  unless  it  is  able  to  crush  rebellion,  revolu- 
tion, or  lawlessness  of  any  kind  within  its  bounds. 
The  state,  indeed,  "cannot  exist  without  having 
the  power  of  compelling  those  who  oppose  its 
aims  to  surrender  their  will  to  the  law."1  But 
the  right  of  a  people  or  of  a  state  to  institute  and 
establish  a  form  of  government  carries  with  it 
the  right  to  alter  or  amend  that  government. 
This  is  the  foundation  principle  of  a  free  people. 
The  first  President  of  the  United  States  said  in 
his  Farewell  Address  in  1796: 

The  basis  of  our  political  systems  is  the  right  of 
the  people  to  make  and  alter  their  constitutions  of 
government.  But  the  constitution  which  at  any 
time  exists,  till  changed  by  an  explicit  and  authentic 

1  Geffcken:  Church  and  State,  i.,  73. 
135 


136  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

act  of  the  whole  people,  is  sacredly  obligatory  upon 
all.  The  very  idea  of  the  power  and  right  of  the 
people  to  establish  government  presupposes  the  duty 
of  every  individual  to  obey  the  established  govern- 
ment. All  obstructions  to  the  execution  of  the  laws, 
all  combinations  and  associations,  under  whatever 
plausible  character,  with  the  real  design  to  direct, 
control,  counteract,  or  awe  the  regular  deliberation 
and  action  of  the  constituted  authorities,  are  destruc- 
tive of  this  fundamental  principle,  and  of  fatal 
tendency.1 

Alterations  and  changes  in  a  government  made 
in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  a  state's  constitu- 
tion, by  its  representatives  in  regular  or  consti- 
tutional manner,  may  be  properly  considered 
reforms.  A  revolution  implies  more  than  a 
change  of  administration,  or  a  change  of  policy 
on  the  part  of  the  government.  It  involves 
more  than  an  amendment  of  the  constitution. 
It  involves  nothing  less  than  an  overthrow,  or 
fundamental  change,  in  spirit  as  well  as  in  form, 
of  an  existing  constitution.  It  is  the  renunciation 
of  one  government  and  the  substitution  of  another. 
Where  reforms  willed  by  the  people  are  denied 
by  an  existing  government,  or  prohibited  by  an 
existing  constitution,  the  only  alternative  by 

i  Bryan:  The  World's  Famous  Orations,  viii.,  95. 
Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  476,  note. 


Right  of  Reform  and  Revolution  ,  137 

which  that  will  of  the  people  may  be  carried  into 
effect  is  a  revolution.  There  is  a  right  of  revolu- 
tion, but  it  is  rare. l  It  may  be  justified  only  when 
"the  state  itself  is  in  danger  of  perishing,  or  if 
vital  interests  of  the  public  weal  are  threatened."2 
Driven  to  the  last  resort,  a  people  may  forcibly 
overthrow  an  existing  government,  where  they 
cannot  reform  it  in  accordance  with  their  will, 
and  set  up  a  new  constitution,  with  a  new 


1  A  distinction  must  be  drawn  at  the  outset  between  the 
absolutist  views  of  some  peoples  and  ages  on  the  subject  of 
government  and  the  non-absolutist  views  of  others.  The 
absolutist  character  of  the  two  centuries  following  Luther,  as 
Mr.  Bluntschli  says,  implied  a  theory  of  the  state  which  based 
it  upon  the  power  of  a  superior.  Louis  XIV  actually  identi- 
fied himself  with  the  state  ("  l'e"tat  c'est  moi").  This  was 
the  fundamental  idea  of  the  absolutist  theory  of  the  state 
which,  prepared  by  Bodin  and  Hobbes,  was  developed  theo- 
logically and  given  every  variation.  In  this  theory,  the 
rights  and  liberties  of  the  governed  were  altogether  left 
out  of  consideration.  "Only  the  prince  and  the  government 
officials  had  any  value,  and  the  subjects  were  looked  on  as  a 
mere  passive  mass,  to  be  managed  and  governed  from  above, 
but  with  no  claim  to  manage  themselves,  or  to  share  the 
government,  or  to  control  the  conduct  of  their  rulers." 
Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  pp.  64,  65. 

The  theory  of  papal  absolutism,  and  the  arguments  for 
imperial  absolutism  which  followed  closely  in  its  wake, 
though  they  seem  at  first  view  so  genuinely  mediaeval,  are 
really  among  the  first  doctrines  leading  away  from  the  Middle 
Ages.  Gierke :  Political  Theories  of  the  Middle  Age,  p.  5. 

a  Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  477. 


138  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

form  of  government;  for  " necessity  knows  no 
law."1 

Luther  clearly  recognised  a  right  of  reform  in 
accordance  with  the  constitutional  principles  of  a 
government.2  In  his  stirring  Appeal  to  the 
German  Nobility  he  has  distinctly  in  view  an 
orderly  resistance  conducted  by  the  lawful  leaders 
of  the  nation.3  Attention  has  already  been  called 
to  his  proposals  for  various  specific  changes  in  the 
laws  of  the  land.  He  maintained  that  if  the  laws 
binding  a  ruler  are  disregarded  and  violated,  he 
is  subject  to  account  and  dismissal  from  office.4 
The  pope  himself  may  be  deposed.  Lands  unlaw- 
fully held  and  claimed  by  him  should  be  taken 
from  him.  Disputes  and  disagreements  between 
emperor  and  electors  as  to  their  respective  rights 
and  powers  are  questions  of  constitutional  law 

1  The  views  of  another  renowned  German  on  this  general 
subject  will  be  found  reflected  in  Goethe's  Gotz  von  Berlich- 
ingen  mil  der  eisernen  Hand. 

2  Failure  to  distinguish  between  reform  and  revolution 
leads  Lord  Acton  to  say  of  him:  "The  great  fact  which  we 
have  to  recognise  is  that  with  all  the  intensity  of  his  passion 
for  authority  he  did  more  than  any  single  man  to  make 
modern  history  the  development  of  revolution."     Lectures 
on  Modern  History,  p.  105. 

'  Hay:  Luther  the  Reformer,  p.  114. 

<  Locke  follows  Luther's  principle  that  public  service 
is  a  trust  that,  when  abused,  may  be  revoked  by  those 
granting  it. 


Right  of  Reform  and  Revolution     139 

and  therefore  for  the  consideration  of  the  jurists.1 
Luther  maintained  that,  under  certain  circum- 
stances, even  as  to  temporal  matters,  self-defence 
is  the  right  of  the  Christian,  and  especially  so  in 
the  case  of  tyranny.2  When  the  prince  is  in 
the  wrong,  the  subject  is  not  under  obligation  to 
support  him  and  fight  for  him.  If  the  emperor 
himself  violate  the  constitution  and  do  not  per- 
form his  duty  in  accordance  with  his  oath,  let 
him  be  formally  deposed  by  the  imperial  electors3 ; 
but,  until  and  unless  formally  and  legally  deposed, 
he  is  to  be  respected  and  obeyed  as  emperor.4 
As  an  evidence  of  his  personal  willingness  to  obey 

1  Brief  vom  15  Jan.,  1531,  an  Wenceslaus  Link  in  Number g. 
Walch  ed,  xxi  a.,  1616. 

Schrift  vom  15  Feb.,  1531,  an  Lazarus  Spengler,  Geheimer 
Rath  zu  Number g,  ob  man  dem  Kaiser  wider stehen  solle. 
Walch  ed.,  x.,  570. 

2  Dunning:   History  of  Political   Theories  from  Luther  to 
Montesquieu,  p.  14. 

3  This  right  the  electors  not  only  claimed,  but  actually 
exercised  in  several  instances.     In  the  year  1298  they  de- 
posed Adolphus  of  Nassau,  and  elected  Albert  of  Austria  to 
his  place.    Wenceslaus  was  deposed  by  them  at  the  opening 
of  the  fifteenth  century,  and  Rupert,  the  Elector  Palatine, 
elected  emperor  in  his  stead.     This  deposition  was  pronounced 
in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  the  electors,  and  con- 
firmed by  certain  prelates  and  barons  of  the  empire  who  were 
present.     Goldasti:  Constit.,  i.,  379.       Prescott:  Robertson's 
History  of  the  Reign  of  the  Emperor  Charles  V,  i.,  410,  411. 

*  Brief  an  den  Kurfursten  Johannes  vom  6  Marz,  1530. 
Walch  ed.,  x.,  532  et  seq.  Bluntschli:  Geschichte  der  neueren 


140  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

an  unfriendly  ruler,  Luther  declared  his  readiness 
to  appear  personally  before  the  emperor,  if  the 
latter  absolutely  demanded  it.1 

To  Luther,  the  right  of  the  government  itself 
to  engage  in  war  under  certain  conditions  is 
unquestioned.  In  a  reply  to  Prierias,  written  in 
1520,  Luther  says: 

If  the  fury  of  the  Romanists  continue,  there  seems 
to  me  to  be  no  remedy  left  but  that  the  emperor, 
kings,  and  princes,  girding  on  their  armour,  attack 
these  pests  of  the  earth,  and  decide  the  matter,  not  by 
words  but  with  the  sword.  If  we  punish  thieves  with 
the  axe,  heretics  with  fire,  why  do  we  not  rather 
attack  these  masters  of  perdition,  these  cardinals, 
these  popes,  and  the  whole  rabble  of  the  Roman 
Sodom,  and  wash  our  hands  in  their  blood,  and  thus 
free  ourselves  from  the  common  and  most  dangerous 
conflagration  of  all.2 

In  his  tract  on  Secular  Authority*  Luther  asserts 
that  all  the  saints  have  carried  the  sword  from 
the  beginning  of  the  world, — Adam,  with  his 


Statswissenschaft,  Allgemeines  Statsrecht  und  Politik  seit  detn 
1 6  Jahrhundert  bis  zur  Gegenwart,  p.  70. 

»  Brief  an  denselben,  vom  28  Nov.,  1529.  Bluntschli:  Ge- 
schichte  der  neueren  Statswissenschaft,  Allgemeines  Statsrecht 
und  Politik  seit  dent  16  Jahrhundert  bis  zur  Gegenwart,  p.  70. 

2  Mackinnon:  A  History  of  Modern  Liberty,  ii.,  62,  63. 

3  Von  weltlicher  Oberkeit,  wie  weit  man  ihr  Gehorsam  schuldig 
sei  (1523).     Weimar  ed.,  n  Band,  229  et  seq. 


Right  of  Reform  and  Revolution     141 

descendants,  and  Abraham  carried  it.  Samuel, 
the  holy  prophet,  slew  Agag,  the  king,  and  Elijah 
slew  the  prophets  of  Baal.  Moses,  Joshua,  the 
Children  of  Israel,  Samson,  David,  and  all  the 
kings  and  princes  in  the  Old  Testament  carried 
it;  Daniel  and  his  associates  in  Babylon,  Joseph 
in  Egypt,  etc.  If  it  be  asserted  that  the  Old 
Testament  is  abrogated  and  is  no  longer  in  force, 
and  that  such  examples  cannot  be  cited  authorita- 
tively to  the  Christian,  I  answer,  that  is  not  so. 
There  then  arises  the  question  as  to  the  correct 
understanding  of  the  words  of  Christ:  " Resist 
not  evil."1  It  is  this.  A  Christian  should  be  so 
skilled  and  qualified  as  to  suffer  everything  evil 
and  unjust,  and  not  avenge  himself,  not  protect 
himself  before  the  courts;  but  that  in  all  things  he 
should  not  require  temporal  authority  and  law 
for  himself.  But  for  others,  he  may  and  should 
seek  punishment,  justice,  protection,  and  help, 
and  do  in  connection  therewith  whatever  he  may 
be  able.  The  civil  authorities  should  also  assist 
and  protect  him  either  on  their  own  initiative  or 
that  of  others,  without  complaint  or  action  on  his 
own  part.  Where  they  do  not  do  that,  let  him 
permit  himself  to  be  oppressed  and  abused,  and 
withstand  no  evil,  as  Christ's  words  declare. 
As  to  whether  jailers,  executioners,  jurists, 

»  Matthew  v.,  39. 


142  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

advocates,  and  such  like  may  be  Christians  and 
have  a  holy  estate,  Luther  maintains  that  the 
civil  power  and  the  sword  are  a  divine  service, 
so  that  all  that  also  must  be  divine  service  that 
is  necessary  to  the  civil  power  in  wielding  the 
sword.  It  must  ever  be  that  he  who  apprehends, 
accuses,  and  destroys  the  wicked,  protects,  justi- 
fies, defends,  and  rescues  the  good.  Whenever, 
therefore,  one  is  not  seeking  for  himself,  but  is 
helping  the  maintenance  of  law  and  order,  that 
the  wicked  may  be  restrained,  he  may  do  so 
without  danger,  and  may  use  it  as  a  business  and 
live  thereon.  For  love  of  neighbour  does  not 
consider  its  own  and  does  not  see  how  large  or 
small,  but  how  useful  and  necessary  any  work 
may  be  to  the  neighbour  or  to  the  community. 
Luther  declares  further  in  this  treatise  that  no 
prince  should  wage  war  against  his  overlords,  as 
the  king  or  emperor,  or  other  feudal  lords,  but 
should  take  what  comes.  For  the  authorities 
should  not  be  forcibly  withstood,  but  with  a 
recognition  of  the  truth.  If  the  adversary  be  an 
equal  or  an  inferior,  or  a  foreign  power,  first  seek 
right  and  peace,  as  Moses  taught  the  children  of 
Israel.  If  the  adversary  is  not  willing  to  do  this, 
then  do  your  best  and  protect  yourself  with  force 
against  force,  as  Moses  well  expresses  it  in  Deu- 
teronomy xix. ,  10  et  seq.  And  in  such  a  matter,  you 


Right  of  Reform  and  Revolution     143 

are  not  to  consider  your  own  things  and  how  you 
may  remain  lord,  but  should  consider  your  sub- 
jects, to  whom  you  owe  protection  and  assistance. 
The  subjects  are  under  obligation  to  follow  and 
stake  body  and  estate  herein.  For  in  such  a  case, 
each  one  must  hazard  his  property  and  himself  for 
the  sake  of  others.  In  such  a  war  it  is  Christ- 
like  and  a  work  of  love  to  destroy  the  enemy, 
plunder,  burn,  and  do  everything  that  is  injurious, 
until  they  are  overcome,  according  to  the  course 
of  war.  But  you  must  guard  against  sin,  and 
not  violate  wives  and  maidens,  and  when  the 
enemy  is  overcome,  grant  grace  and  peace  to 
those  who  surrender  and  submit.  But  when  a 
prince  is  in  the  wrong,  his  subjects  are  not  under \ 
obligations  to  follow  him,  for  no  one  is  obliged  to 
do  anything  against  the  right;  but  we  must  obey 
God,  who  desires  to  have  the  right,  rather  than 
men. 1  When  the  subj ects  do  not  know  and  cannot 
learn  by  possible  industry  whether  the  prince  is 
in  the  right  or  not,  they  may  then  follow  him 
without  endangering  their  souls.2 

1  Acts  of  the  Apostles  v.,  29. 

2  Von  weltlicher  Oberkeit,  wie  weit  man  ihr  Gehorsam  schuldig 
sei  (1523).     Weimar  ed.,  n  Band,  229  et  seq.     RathschlagD. 
Luther s,  Melanchthons  und  Bugenhagens,  ob   ein  Furst  seine 
Unterthanen  wider  des  Kaisers  oder  anderer  Fursten  Verfolg- 
ung,  um  des  Glaubens  willen,  mit  Krieg  schutzen  moge  (1523). 
Walch  ed.,  x.,  572  et  seq. 


144  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

Luther  cannot  be  quoted  in  support  of  absolute 
tyranny,  or  unconstitutional  acts  of  governments 
or  rulers.  One  sees  in  him  the  manly  Teutonic 
sense  of  law  and  liberty,  and  it  is  a  mischievous 
misuse  of  his  authority  for  absolutists  falsely  to 
misapply  his  pious  veneration  of  God's  power, 
that  is  also  to  be  seen  in  civil  authority,  to  servile 
subjection  under  every  tyranny.1 

Lawlessness  and  anarchy,  however,  are  to  be 
sternly  suppressed  by  the  government.  In  writ- 
ing on  riotous  disturbances,2  he  maintains  that 
the  place  of  law  and  order  is  not  to  be  taken  or 
filled  by  insurrection  and  violence.  Insurrection 
has  no  reason,  and  generally  injures  the  innocent 
more  than  the  guilty.  No  lawless  violence  is 
right,  however  right  the  object  it  may  be  seeking. 
There  invariably  results  more  injury  than  better- 
ment, as  expressed  in  the  maxim:  " Aus  Uebel 
wird  Aergeres."  For  this  reason  rulers  and  the 
sword  are  instituted,  to  punish  the  wicked  and 
protect  the  good,  that  lawless  insurrection  may 
be  guarded  against,  as  St.  Paul  says  in  Romans 
xiii.,  4,  and  Peter  in  I  Peter  ii.,  13,  14.  The  rioter 

1  Bluntschli:  Geschichte  der  neueren  Statswissenschaft,  Allge- 
meines  Statsrecht  und  Potitik,  p.  72. 

a  "Aufruhr,"  the  German  word  used  by  Luther  in  this 
connection,  is  difficult  to  translate  into  any  one  English 
equivalent.  It  is  variously  translated  uproar,  tumult, 
disorder,  insurrection,  mutiny,  rebellion,  revolt,  riot,  sedition. 


Right  of  Reform  and  Revolution     145 

does  not  distinguish  between  the  good  and  the 
bad,  but  strikes  into  the  crowd  as  it  stands,  and 
cannot  avoid  doing  shameless  wrong.  Therefore, 
honour  the  authorities.  So  long  as  they  do  not 
act  and  command,  the  citizen  should  remain 
quiet  with  hand,  mouth,  and  heart,  and  hold 
himself  aloof.  He  may  influence  the  proper 
authorities  to  take  action,  if  he  can.  But  if  they 
will  not,  neither  may  he.  I  hold,  argues  Luther, 
and  always  wi]l  hold  with  the  people  who  suffer 
from  insurrection,  howsoever  wrongful  a  cause 
it  may  have,  and  against  the  people  who  partici- 
pate in  it,  howsoever  rightful  a  cause  it  may  have, 
because  lawless  insurrection  or  revolt  cannot  but 
involve  innocent  blood  or  other  loss.  Moreover, 
sedition  is  prohibited  by  God,  who  says  in  Moses: 
"That  which  is  altogether  just  shalt  thou  fol- 
low"1; likewise,  "To  me  belongeth  vengeance,  and 
recompense. ' ' 2  Therefrom  comes  the  true  maxim : 
"Wer  wiederschldgt,  der  ist  unrecht";  and  again, 
"Niemand  kann  sein  eigner  Richter  sein."  Sedi- 
tion is  nothing  else  than  judging  and  avenging 
one's  self.  God  cannot  suffer  that,  and  therefore 
it  is  not  possible  but  that  sedition  will  ever  make 
conditions  worse,  because  it  is  against  God  and 
God  is  not  with  it.3 

1  Deuteronomy  xvi.,  20.  2  Deuteronomy  xxxii.,  35. 

J  Eine  treue  Vermahnung  zu  alien  Christen,  sich  zu  huten  vor 

10 


146  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

This  is  a  strong  and  stirring  appeal  to  do  every- 
thing orderly,  constitutionally,  and  regularly; 
and  these  principles  continued  unchanged  through- 
out Luther's  entire  life.  He  was  in  sympathy 
with  many — though  not  all — of  the  peasants' 
aims,  when  they  rose  in  their  insurrection.  He 
urged  the  princes  and  the  lords  to  consider  the 
condition  of  the  lower  classes  and  make  their 
life  more  bearable;  but  when  the  peasants,  in 
their  violence,  by  fire  and  sword,  engaged  in 
wild,  wanton,  and  lawless  destruction  of  life  and 
property,  he  sternly  opposed  and  denounced  their 
lawlessness,  and  urged  the  princes  to  suppress 
the  riots  and  the  rioters  at  all  cost.  The  murderer 
and  the  common  criminal,  he  asserted,  fully  recog- 
nise government  at  large,  but  forcibly  wrong  an 
individual;  but  the  rioter,  the  anarchist,  recognises 
no  government  and  respects  no  authority,  but 
strikes  at  the  very  roots  of  civil  law  and  order. 

The  criticism  by  various  writers  of  Luther's 
appeal  to  the  German  princes  to  suppress  the 
riots  and  lawlessness — murder,  pillage,  destruction 
of  property,  and  the  recognition  of  no  individual 
or  governmental  rights — of  the  peasants  in  their 
uprisings,  is  not  well  founded.  One  writer,  for 
example,  declares  that  in  his  attitude  towards  the 

Aufruhr  und  Emporung  (1522).     Weimar  ed.,  8  Band,  670  et 
seq. 


Right  of  Reform  and  Revolution     147 

peasants,  Luther  was  "outrageous"  and  "incon- 
sistent."1 Another  says:  "When  all  is  said  that 
can  reasonably  be  said  in  explanation  of  his 
action,  we  cannot  help  feeling  that  the  language 
of  this  pamphlet2  is  an  ineffaceable  stain  on 
Luther,  which  no  extenuating  circumstances  can 
wipe  out.  It  remains  the  greatest  blot  on  his 
noble  life  and  career."3 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  Luther  cannot  be  justly 
criticised  for  his  position  in  this  matter,  for  his 
attitude,  properly  understood,  is  the  unquestioned 
attitude  of  the  modern  state,  and  is  recognised 
as  absolutely  necessary  to  the  public  peace,  order, 
and  safety  and  the  protection  of  all  rightful 
interests.  Two  wrongs  do  not  make  a  right;  and 
wrongs,  where  they  exist,  are  to  be  righted  orderly 
and  lawfully.  No  government  can  stand,  without 
maintaining  law  and  order  and  suppressing 
violence  and  lawlessness.  The  very  life  of  the 
state — as  well  as  that  of  society  itself — is  involved. 

Luther  himself  explained  his  attitude,  and  it 
should  be  carefully  noted.4  He  says  that  the 
maxims  dealing  with  mercy  belong  to  the  kingdom 

»  Mackinnon:  A  History  of  Modern  Liberty,  ii.,  107. 

2  Wider    die    rduberischen    und    morderischen    Rotten    der 
Bauern  (1525).     Weimar  ed.f  18  Band,  344  etseq. 

3  Lindsay:  Luther  and  the  German  Reformation,  p.  186. 

*  Ein  Sendbrief  von  dem  harten  Buchlein  wider  die  Bauern 
(1525).  Weimar  ed.,  18  Band,  375  et  seq. 


148  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

of  God  and  among  Christians,  not  to  the  kingdom 
of  the  world,  which  is  the  instrument  of  godly 
wrath  upon  the  wicked.  The  instrument  in  the 
hand  of  the  state  is  not  a  garland  of  roses  or  a 
flower  of  love,  but  a  naked  sword.  As  I  de- 
clared at  the  time,  he  says,  so  declare  I  yet: 
Let  every  one  who  can,  as  he  may  be  able,  cut, 
stab,  choke,  and  strike  the  stiff-necked,  obdurate, 
blind,  infatuated  peasants;  that  mercy  may  be 
shown  towards  those  who  are  destroyed,  driven 
away,  and  misled  by  the  peasants;  that  peace  and 
security  may  be  had.  It  is  better  to  mercilessly 
cut  off  one  member  rather  than  lose  the  entire 
body,  through  fire  or  plague.  Furthermore,  the 
insurgents  are  notoriously  faithless,  perjured, 
disobedient,  riotous  thieves,  robbers,  murderers, 
and  blasphemers,  so  that  there  is  not  one  of 
them  but  has  well  deserved  death  ten  times  over 
without  mercy.  If  my  advice  had  been  followed 
in  the  very  beginning,  and  a  few  lives  had  been 
taken,  before  the  insurrection  assumed  such  large 
proportions,  thousands  of  lives  that  have  been 
lost  would  have  been  saved.  The  experience 
should  make  all  parties  involved  wiser. 

If  it  be  said,  he  continues,  that  I  myself 
teach  lawlessness  when  I  urge  all  who  can  to 
cut  down  the  rioters,  my  reply  is:  My  booklet 
was  not  written  against  common  evil-doers,  but 


Right  of  Reform  and  Revolution     149 

against  seditious  rioters.  There  is  a  marked 
distinction  between  such  a  one  and  a  murderer 
or  robber  or  other  ordinary  criminal ;  for  a  mur- 
derer or  similar  criminal  lets  the  head  and 
civil  authority  itself  stand,  and  attacks  merely 
its  members  or  its  property.  He,  indeed,  fears 
the  government.  Now,  while  the  head  remains, 
no  individual  should  attack  the  murderer,  be- 
cause the  head  (civil  authority)  can  punish  him, 
but  should  wait  for  the  judgment  and  sentence  of 
that  authority  to  which  God  has  given  the  sword 
and  the  office. 

But  the  rioter  attacks  the  head  itself,  so  that 
his  offence  bears  no  comparison  with  that  of  the 
murderer.  In  this  case,  there  can  be  no  delay 
awaiting  the  action  and  the  judgment  of  the  head, 
for  the  latter  has  been  seized  and  held  in  check; 
and  every  one  who  can  should  hasten,  without 
waiting  for  solicitation  or  command,  and,  as  a 
faithful  member,  help  rescue  its  head  by  stabbing, 
cutting,  throttling.  For  lawless  rioting  is  no 
jest,  and  there  is  no  wickedness  on  earth  com- 
parable to  it.  Other  wrongs  are  single  crimes,  but 
rioting  and  insurrection  are  a  deluge  of  all  crimes 
combined.  Such  lawlessness  does  not  deserve 
judgment  or  mercy,  whether  it  take  place  among 
heathen,  Jews,  Turks,  Christians,  or  anywhere, 
but  is  already  heard,  judged,  sentenced,  and 


150  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

delivered  over  to  death  in  the  hand  of  any  and 
every  one.  But  Luther  reminds  the  rulers 
that,  when  order  has  been  restored  and  the  rioting 
suppressed,  they  are  to  show  mercy  not  only  to 
the  innocent,  but  also  to  the  guilty. 

In  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Elector  John, 
written  more  than  three  months  before  the  Diet 
of  Augsburg,  of  1530,  Luther  states1  that  he 
has  conferred  with  his  friends  Jonas,  Pommer,  and 
Melanchthon  on  the  subject  of  the  right  of  defence 
against  the  emperor,  should  he  attempt  to  wage 
war  on  the  Protestant  princes  and  people  on 
account  of  their  faith.  Some,  perhaps,  might  con- 
clude that,  according  to  imperial  or  civil  law, 
the  subject  would  have  a  right  to  protect  himself 
against  the  emperor  in  such  a  case,  particularly 
because  that  ruler  had  bound  himself  under  oath 
to  respect  all  established  liberty  and  not  to  forcibly 
invade  the  rights  of  the  subjects. 

But,  according  to  the  Scripture,  it  is  in  no  way 
becoming  for  any  one  who  wants  to  be  a  Christian 
to  oppose  the  civil  authority  over  him  whether 
it  does  right  or  wrong.  A  Christian  should  endure 
violence  and  wrong  from  his  ruler.  For  though 

»  Von  der  Gegenwehr,  so  die  Evangelischen  um  des  Evan- 
geliums  willen  mit  Krieg  uberzogen  wurden.  Schreiben  an 
Churfurst  Johann  zu  Sachsen  die  Gegenwehr  belangend  (March 
6,  1530).  Walch  ed,  x.,  532  et  seq. 


Right  of  Reform  and  Revolution     151 

the  emperor  do  wrong,  fail  in  his  duty,  and  break 
his  oath,  his  imperial  authority  and  the  obedience 
of  his  subjects  are  not  suspended,  so  long  as  the 
empire  and  the  electoral  princes  keep  and  retain 
him  as  emperor  and  do  not  depose  him.  If  an 
emperor  or  a  prince  break  all  of  God's  command- 
ments, he  remains  nevertheless  emperor  or  prince, 
and  is  under  much  higher  obligation  to  God  than 
to  men.  Were  it  now  sufficient  reason  for  man  to 
resist  the  emperor  that  he  does  wrong,  then  in 
every  case,  as  often  as  he  acts  against  God,  could 
he  be  resisted  by  men. 

Under  such  conditions  there  would  remain  no 
authority  or  obedience  at  all  in  the  world ;  because 
the  subject  or  servant  would  present  the  plea 
that  his  ruler  had  committed  a  wrong  against 
God. 

But,  inasmuch  as  the  emperor  remains  emperor, 
and  the  prince  remains  prince,  though  he  break 
all  God's  commandments,  indeed  even  though 
he  be  a  heathen;  so  is  he  the  same  if  he  break  his 
oath  and  engagements,  until  deposed  or  until  he 
ceases  to  be  emperor.  Christ's  saying  stands  fast: 
"  Render  therefore  unto  Caesar  the  things  which 
are  Caesar's"1;  and,  "Honour  the  king."2  For 
we  are  to  be  obedient  subjects  in  all  fear  not  only 
to  the  good  and  pious,  but  also  to  the  wicked  and 

*  Matthew  xxii.,  21.  2  i  Peter  ii.,  17. 


152  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

incapable  lords.  In  short,  wrong-doing  does  not 
release  authority  and  obedience;  but  the  penalty 
will  do  so;  that  is,  if  the  empire  and  the  electoral 
princes,  acting  in  accord,  depose  the  emperor, 
that  he  be  emperor  no  longer.  But  as  long  as 
he  is  unpunished  and  remains  emperor,  no  one 
should  withhold  obedience  or  strive  against  him; 
for  that  is  treason,  rebellion,  and  dissension.^ 

If  the  emperor,  while  emperor,  take  steps  against 
the  subjects  of  the  empire,  it  is  not  for  the  princes 
to  forcibly  resist, — let  every  man  look  to  himself; 
but  if  the  emperor  go  further  and  seek  to  compel 
the  princes  to  attack,  persecute,  kill,  and  drive 
away  their  subjects,  on  account  of  the  Gospel, 
and  the  princes  believe  or  know  that  the  emperor 
does  wrong  or  acts  against  God  in  the  matter,  then 
it  affects  their  own  faith  and  they  should  not 
obey  the  emperor  and  not  consent,  assist,  or 
participate  in  such  wrong-doing.  It  is  enough 
that  they  leave  land  and  people  unprotected  and 
the  emperor  unhindered,  and  say:  If  the  emperor 
will  annoy  our  subjects,  as  also  his  own,  he  may 
do  so  on  his  conscience,  we  cannot  prevent  it; 
but  we  will  not  assist  him  in  it,  nor  will  we  consent 
to  it.  "We  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than 
men.?* 

In  a  letter  written  about  eight  months  after 

1  Acts  of  the  Apostles  v.,  29. 


Right  of  Reform  and  Revolution     153 

the  famous  Diet  of  Augsburg,1  Luther  takes 
occasion  to  deny  a  rumour  that  there  has  been  a 
change  in  his  attitude  on  the  subject.  He  still 
maintains  that  full  obedience  is  to  be  rendered 
the  civil  authorities,  except  in  so  far  as  the  powers 
of  the  ruler  may  be  subject  to  constitutional 
limitations,  or  he  may  have  waived  and  agreed 
to  certain  stipulations  or  conditions,  or  may  have 
exceeded  his  authority, — as  the  courts  may  in- 
vestigate and  determine.  In  the  case  in  hand — as 
to  resistance  to  Charles  V — he  declares  he  awaits 
the  decision  of  the  jurists. 

In  a  letter  written  a  month  later,2  Luther  repeats 
his  conviction  that  a  Christian  must  not  resist  the 
powers  that  be ;  but  he  makes  a  distinction  between 
the  Christian  and  the  citizen,  that  is,  between  the 
member  of  the  body  of  Christ  and  the  member 
of  the  body  politic.  As  a  citizen,  he  agrees  with 
the  jurists  that  resistance  against  the  emperor 
is  admissible;  and,  although  as  a  theologian  he 
will  not  advise  any  Christian  to  resist,  he  leaves 
it  to  each  individual  conscience  to  decide  how  he 
shall  act. 


1  Schrift  an  Lazarus  Spengler,  Geheimer  Rath  zu  Nurnberg, 
ob  man  dem  Kaiser  wider stehen  solle  (Feb.  15, 1531).    Walch 
ed.,  x.,  570^  seq. 

2  Gegenwehr  wider  den  Kaiser:  Letter  of  March  18,  1531,  to 
a  citizen  of  Nurnberg.     Walch  ed.,  x.,  568  et  seq. 


154  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

The  following  argument  appears  in  a  document1 
written  by  Luther  about  the  same  time : 

This  is  my  honest  advice  in  case  the  emperor  were 
to  declare  war  against  us  on  account  of  the  pope's 
affairs  or  our  teaching — though  I  do  not  believe  it  of 
him  as  yet;  that  no  one  should  let  himself  be  so  used, 
or  obey  the  emperor,  but  be  assured  that  in  such  a 
matter  he  is  strictly  forbidden  by  God  to  obey  him, 
and  let  him  know  who  does  obey  him  that  he  is 
disobeying  God  and  will  eternally  lose  body  and  soul ; 
for  the  emperor  then  conducts  himself  not  only 
contrary  to  God  and  His  law,  but  likewise  contrary 
to  his  own  imperial  rights,  oaths,  duty,  seal,  and 
letters.  And  that  you  may  not  think  that  this  is 
merely  my  fancy  or  that  I  give  this  counsel  out  of 
my  own  head,  I  set  forth  the  ground  and  reasons  for 
the  same  so  strong  and  clear  that  you  may  understand 
that  it  is  not  merely  my  personal  advice,  but  the 
earnest  and  manifold  strong  command  of  God,  Whose 
wrath  you  should  and  finally  must  fear. 

The  first  reason  why  you  should  not  obey  and 
fight  for  the  emperor  in  such  a  matter  is  that  you — 
as  well  as  the  emperor  himself — vowed  in  baptism 
to  defend,  and  not  persecute  or  deny,  the  Gospel 
of  Christ.  .  .  .  The  second  reason  is  that,  were  our 
teaching  not  true, — though  everybody  knows  other- 

1  D.  Martin  Luther s  Warnung  an  seine  lieben  Deutschen 
(in  den  ersten  Monaten  des  Jahrs  1531).  Walch  ed.,  xvi., 
1616  et  seq. 


Right  of  Reform  and  Revolution     155 

wise — you  should  be  deterred  from  participating 
in  and  becoming  guilty  before  God  of  the  atrocities 
that  have  taken  place  and  will  take  place  under  the 
papacy.  The  third  reason  why  you  should  not  obey 
such  a  mandate  of  the  emperor  is  that,  if  you  did  so, 
you  would  not  only  participate  in  and  help  strengthen 
such  abominations,  but  that  you  would  also  help 
to  destroy  and  root  up  all  the  good  that  is  produced 
and  done  through  the  Holy  Gospel.  If  you  are  open 
to  advice,  you  have  warning  enough  here  that  you 
should  not  obey  the  emperor  and  your  princes  in 
such  case,  as  the  Apostle  declares:  "We  ought  to 
obey  God  rather  than  men"  (Acts  v.,  29). 

The  opinions  of  the  jurists,  to  whom  Luther 
deferred  in  the  matter  of  forcible  resistance  against 
the  emperor  when  he  threatened  princes  and 
people  with  force  on  account  of  their  faith,  is 
shown  in  an  interesting  document  setting  forth  a 
classification  of  cases  in  which  it  would  be  justi- 
fiable to  resist  judges  and  courts  in  their  acts  and 
decisions.1  They  declare  that  it  is  held  by  various 
legal  authorities  cited  that  opposition  may  be  of- 
fered where  a  judge  without  jurisdiction  proceeds 

i  Etlicher  Rechtsgelehrten  zu  Wittenberg  Meinung  von  der 
Frage:  Ob  man  einem  Richter,  der  unrechtmdssig  procedirt, 
Widerstand  thun  moge  (without  date).  Walch  ed.,  x.,  558  et 
seq.  Also  see :  Drittes  Bedenken  der  Theologen  (Luther,  Jonas, 
Bugenhagen,  Amsdorf,  and  Melanchthon)  zu  Wittenberg  von  der 
Gegenwehr  (without  date).  Walch  ed.,  x.,  562  et  seq. 


156  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

with  a  case,  where  an  appeal  has  been  taken  to  a 
higher  court,  where  a  judge  proceeds  irregularly, 
where  an  injury  is  irreparable,  or  where  a  sentence 
is  plainly  and  notoriously  unjust  and  contrary  to 
law.  The  emperor  has  no  jurisdiction  or  authority 
in  matters  of  faith :  in  such  case,  he  has  no  author- 
ity, power,  or  right.  Concerning  this,  he  is  only 
a  private  individual,  and  has  no  power  to  decide 
or  to  decree  what  people  are  to  hold  and  believe. 
Resistance  may  be  offered  to  a  judge  who  acts 
without  jurisdiction,  proceeds  contrary  to  law, 
or  where  an  appeal  has  been  taken  from  his  de- 
cision. How  much  more,  then,  may  resistance  be 
offered  to  one  who  is  not  a  judge  at  all  in  a  given 
matter,  and  has  no  jurisdiction  or  dominion  over 
the  case? 

In  a  paper  signed  by  Luther  and  three  of  his 
co-workers,1  at  a  time  when  the  emperor  was 
preparing  to  proceed  against  the  Protestants  to 
destroy  them  on  account  of  their  faith,  an  opinion 
is  expressed  as  to  whether  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
civil  government  to  protect  itself  and  its  subjects 
against  unlawful  violence  offered  by  princes  or 

»  Viertes  Bedenken  der  Theologen  zu  Wittenberg  von  der 
Gegenwehr.  Signed  by  Luther,  Jonas,  Bucer,  and  Melanch- 
thon  (January,  1539).  Walch  ed.,  x.,  566  et  seq.  Bluntschli: 
Deutsches  Staatsworterbuch,  article  on  Luther.  Scherger;  The 
Evolution  of  Modern  Liberty,  pp.  106,  107. 


Right  of  Reform  and  Revolution     157 

emperor  alike,  especially  in  religious  matters. 
Without  doubt,  they  declare,  it  is  God's  truth 
that  not  only  should  defence  be  permitted,  but 
every  government  is  truly  and  earnestly  com- 
manded and  in  duty  bound  to  protect  and  defend 
itself  if  any  person — civil  authority  or  otherwise — 
undertake  to  compel  it  to  accept  idolatry  and 
forbidden  worship :  likewise  if  any  one  attempt 
to  exercise  any  unjust  power  over  its  subjects. 
This  is  repeatedly  commanded  in  the  word  of 
God. 

And  as  the  Gospel  confirms  the  office  of  civil 
authority,  natural  and  established  laws  likewise 
confirm  it.  Every  father,  without  doubt,  is  in 
duty  bound,  according  to  his  ability,  to  protect 
wife  and  child  against  public  murder;  and  there 
is  no  difference  between  an  individual  murderer 
and  the  emperor  should  he,  beyond  or  outside  the 
jurisdiction  of  his  office,  exercise  unlawful  authority 
and  especially  openly  or  notoriously  unlawful 
authority.  For  open  violence  releases  all  duties 
between  the  subject  and  the  ruler  by  natural  law. 
Such  is  the  case  when  the  ruler  endeavours  to 
force  his  subjects  into  blasphemy  and  idolatry. 

Luther  declares  further  that  when  the  ban  has 
been  made  public  against  one  or  more  members 
of  a  league  or  alliance,  the  enemy  has  declared 
war,  and  the  parties  on  the  defensive  may  take 


158  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

notice  thereof  without  waiting  for  actual  attack, 
and  take  steps  for  their  protection  in  accordance 
with  the  tenor  of  natural  and  written  law,  in 
view  of  the  prescribed  rule  that  the  Gospel  does 
not  prohibit  but  confirms  the  office  and  natural 
right  of  civil  authority.  While  this  is  true,  it  is 
not  proper  immediately  to  conclude  to  make  an 
attack.  The  lords  should  consider  whether  it  is 
expedient,  or  whether  perhaps  there  is  not  another 
course  that  may  be  pursued. 

As  to  whether  the  estates  may  protect  and 
defend  themselves  if  the  emperor  forcibly  and 
tyrannically  attack  and  make  war  upon  them, 
Luther,  as  late  as  February,  I539,1  expressed  the 
fond  hope  that  Charles  V,  of  himself,  was  not  the 
kind  of  a  man  to  wage  such  a  war;  but  the  pope 
and  the  bishops — and  it  must  be  remembered 
that  Rome  claimed  and  indeed  exercised  over  a 
given  territory  a  civil  authority,  as  well  as  ecclesi- 
astical— would  like  to  use  him  as  their  champion 
against  the  plain,  clear,  and  evident  truth.  For 
the  emperor,  as  king  and  lord,  has  no  cause  or 
complaint  against  the  princes  and  lords,  but  the 

i  Schrift  an  Johann  Lubeck,  Pfarrer  in  Cotbus,  von  der 
Gegenwehr  (Feb.  8,  1539).  Walch  ed.,  x.,  554  et  seq.  It  is 
not  incumbent  on  the  subject  to  obey  unauthorised  or  un- 
constitutional commands  from  civil  authority.  See  also 
Bedenken  an  den  Kanzler  D.  Gregor  Bruck  von  der  Gegenwehr, 
(1539).  Walch  ed.,  x.,  548  et  seq. 


Right  of  Reform  and  Revolution     159 

pope  makes  one  where  there  is  none  that  he  may 
lead  and  involve  the  emperor  in  a  dangerous 
contest.  And  as  it  is  right  to  fight  against  the 
Turks  and  protect  and  defend  ourselves,  how 
much  more  justifiable  and  praiseworthy  is  it  here 
to  war  against  the  pope  and  his  followers,  who 
are  worse  than  the  Turks. 

If  his  imperial  majesty  join  the  papal  or  Turkish 
armies,  Luther  argues,  he  may  expect  a  like 
reward.  "Our  princes  have  therefore  decided 
that  in  such  case  his  imperial  majesty  is  not 
emperor  but  a  warrior,  servant,  and  robber  of  the 
pope,  as  the  latter  in  such  a  war  is  the  real  leader 
and  emperor.  This  is  the  attitude  of  our  estates. 
The  German  princes  have  more  right  as  against 
the  emperor  than  the  people  in  that  day  had 
against  Saul,  and  Ahikam  against  Jehoiakim. 
The  emperor  is  not  an  autocrat;  and  it  is  not 
within  his  authority  to  depose  the  electoral  princes 
and  change  the  form  and  glory  of  the  empire;  and 
it  is  not  to  be  permitted,  should  he  attempt  it. 
Inasmuch  as  this  could  not  and  dare  not  be  per- 
mitted in  any  way  as  affecting  business  matters 
and  temporal  affairs,  how  much  less  is  it  to  be 
endured  if  his  imperial  majesty  begin  and  wage 
a  war  for  a  foreign  cause  and  in  the  interests  of 
the  devil.  If  his  majesty  does  not  know  that 
the  cause  is  so  evil,  it  is  nevertheless  sufficient 


160  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

for  us  that  we  know  it  and  are  certain  of 
it." 

It  is  well  known  how  incessantly  and  earnestly 
Luther  preached  and  wrote  against  rebellion 
and  insurrection.  He  maintained  that  of  the 
two  ways  by  which  wrongs  may  be  righted — 
(i)  the  way  of  peace,  that  is,  reform;  and  (2)  the 
way  of  war,  that  is,  revolution — the  former  method 
is  the  safer  and  the  better.  "He  never  had  any 
sympathy  with  an  armed  uprising  to  effect  the 
most  legitimate  reforms."1  He  was  opposed  to 
doing  wrong  in  order  to  effect  good.  He  con- 
sidered the  means  to  be  employed  as  well  as  the 
end  in  view.  Legal  and  constitutional  measures 
properly  taken  are  the  Christian  method  of  reform. 
The  citizen  may  influence  the  government,  the 
administration,  the  civil  authorities,  in  any  way 
he  can  peacefully,  but  he  is  not  to  use  force  and 
violence  except  in  self-defence.  This  principle 
of  submission  to  legitimate  authority  and  refusal 
to  endorse  revolution  is  applicable  only  to  the 
subject  of  an  established  government  carried  on 
in  accordance  with  its  constitutional  rights  and 
principles.  It  does  not  apply  in  any  sense,  with 
Luther,  to  the  state's  right  to  suppress  riot  and 
lawlessness,  maintain  peace  within,  and  defend 
itself  against  foes  without. 

»  Lindsay:  Luther  and  the  German  Reformation,  p.  182. 


Right  of  Reform  and  Revolution     161 

Attention  has  already  been  called  to  the  pactum 
St.  Augustine  holds  was  agreed  upon  between 
kings  and  people  in  which  is  to  be  found  the 
beginning  of  the  idea  that  government  rests  upon 
the  consent  of  the  governed.  From  his  day  to 
the  time  of  Gregory  VII,  this  theory  was  in  a 
measure  preserved  in  the  election  of  the  German 
King  by  the  people.  Alongside  of  it  was  the 
theory  that  God  gave  the  power  of  government 
to  the  people,  and  that  they,  in  turn,  gave  it  to 
the  kings.1  Not  only  did  the  Germanic  law  itself, 
but  also  the  various  contracts  and  agreements 
between  princes  and  estates  help  to  strengthen 
this  theory.  Appeal  was  made  to  the  Bible, 
which  tells  of  a  contract  made  at  Hebron  between 
David  and  the  people  of  Israel.2  The  jurists 
proclaimed  the  principle  that,  according  to  the 
ius  gentium,  every  free  people  may  set  a  superior 
over  itself.3  Nicholas  of  Cusa  declared  that, 
since  all  men  are  by  nature  free,  then  government 
rests  on  the  consent  of  the  governed.4 

The  state,  according  to  the  modern  view,  has 
no  right  to  do  wrong.  To  resist  civil  government 


1  Sullivan:  The  Antecedents  of  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence, p.  7  5. 

2  2  Samuel  v.,  3. 

3  Gierke:  Political  Theories  of  the  "Middle  Age,  p.  39. 
*  De  Concordantia  Catholica,  ii.,  12,  14. 


162  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

per  se  is  to  resist  the  ordinance  of  God.  It  is 
wrong  to  refuse  obedience  to  that  which  is  right; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  right  to  refuse  obe- 
dience to  that  which  is  wrong.  This  is  not  resist- 
ing the  ordinance  of  God.  A  people,  a  nation, 
a  government,  has  the  right  of  reforming  its 
constitution,  its  laws,  its  form,  its  purpose  and 
functions,  the  better  to  secure  and  enjoy  the 
benefits  of  government.  Every  one  of  these 
modern  principles  was  recognised  and  asserted 
by  Luther  nearly  four  centuries  ago.  He  gives 
rightful  authority  the  recognition  it  commands  in 
the  civilised  world  to-day.  ''Once  existing,  the 
state  is  inviolable.  The  government  which  repre- 
sents the  state,  may  be  amended.  The  government 
which  misrepresents  and  betrays  the  state,  may 
be  overthrown.  But  they  who  assail  the  state 
itself,  assail  the  condition  of  all  civilised  rational 
life — their  own  included — and,  so  far  forth,  are 
suicides,  as  well  as  traitors  to  God  and  man."1 

1  Chamberlain :  The  State,  its  Nature,  Origin,  and  Functions, 
P-  34- 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  OBJECTS  OF  THE  STATE 

rthe  state  has  always  existed  and  is  necessary 
to  man,  it  has  a  purpose,  and  this  purpose  it  is 
the  function  of  government  to  accomplish.  In 
other  words,  government  is  the  means  by  which 
the  ends  of  the  state  may  be  secured.  To  say 
that  the  mere  continuance  of  its  own  existence  is 
the  end  of  the  state,  does  not  satisfactorily  answer 
the  question.  Its  aim,  its  object,  cannot  be  and 
is  not  simply  to  maintain  its  own  life,  but  to  be 
and  to  do  something  for  its  subjects  and  for  the 
world.  That  which  is  of  no  service  to  man  or 
people  is  not  necessary  and  will  not  abide.  Yet 
it  is  generally  agreed  that,  viewed  from  different 
standpoints,  the  state  is  both  a  means  and  an 
end.  Its  highest  end  is  the  highest  end,  the  high- 
est possible  development,  of  the  individual1;  and 
thus  it  is  a  means  for  the  advantage  of  the  individ- 

i  M'Kechnie:  The  State  and  the  Individual,  p.  78.  "The 
best  life"  is  the  same  both  for  the  state  and  the  individual. 
See  Aristotle:  Politics,  vii.,  14,  15. 

163 


1 64  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

uals  who  compose  it.  But  from  another  stand- 
point, viewed  as  having  an  existence  apart  from 
the  individual,  it  has  an  end  in  itself,  and  its 
citizens  are  subordinate  to  it  and  bound  to  serve 
it  for  its  own  sake.1  The  ancient  view  of  the 
state  may  be  said,  in  a  degree,  to  have  overlooked 
the  individual  in  placing  emphasis  on  the  omni- 
potence and  prerogatives  of  the  state;  while  the 
modern  view  rather  overlooks  the  majesty  and  the 
power  of  the  state  in  putting  great  stress  upon 
personal  liberty,  sometimes  bordering  on  license. 

The  phrase  we  are  considering  may  be  used  in 
different  senses.  There  is  the  conscious  end  of 
the  state,  referring  to  that  which  is  considered  and 
planned  and  for  which  men  work;  the  actual  end, 
having  reference  to  that  which  is  really  accom- 
plished, and  this  may  be  either  more  or  less  than 
the  conscious  end;  the  practicable  end,  looking  to 
that  which  is  feasible  and  attainable,  under  given 
conditions2;  and  the  highest  conceivable  or  ideal 
end,  which  is  unattainable,  at  least  in  our  day, 
but  which  is  a  distant  star  on  which  men  fondly 
gaze.3  All  these  various  ways  of  considering  the 

1  Bluntschli:   The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  289.     Willoughby: 
An  Examination  of  the  Nature  of  the  State,  p.  317. 

2  Willoughby:  An  Examination  of  the  Nature  of  the  State, 

P-  3°9- 

3  Bluntschli  declares:  "The  end  of  the  state  must  be  recog- 
nisable by  men,  it  must  be  determined  by  human  nature, 


The  Objects  of  the  State          165 

aims  of  the  state  have  shifted  and  changed  from 
generation  to  generation  and  among  different 
peoples  and  conditions;  but  it  will  be  generally 
conceded  that  the  true  end  of  the  state  is  of  the 
nature  of  an  ultimate.  It  has  been  progressive, 
and  may  be  expected  to  continue  so.  "To  know 
the  ideal  end  of  the  state  would  be  to  know  the 
end  of  life  itself."1 

The  subject  is  one  of  such  deep  interest  and 
great  importance  that  it  merits  serious  considera- 
tion. It  has  formed  the  basis  of  much  speculation 
and  many  theories.  This  diversity  of  views  has 
given  rise  to  a  classification  of  theories  of  the 
possible  and  desirable  aims  of  the  state  into  (i) 
the  anarchistic,  maintaining  that  all  government 
is  not  only  essentially  an  evil,  but  an  unnecessary 
evil;  (2)  the  individualistic  or  laissez  faire,  which 
limits  the  province  of  the  state  to  protection  of 
property,  life,  and  liberty;  (3)  the  common  welfare; 
and  (4)  the  socialistic  and  communistic,2  which 
tend  to  the  other  extreme  of  having  the  individual 
look  to  the  state  for  direction  and  assistance  in  all 


and  it  must  be  at  any  rate  nearly  attainable  by  human  effort." 
Theory  of  the  State,  p.  293.  But  this  would  not  necessarily 
apply  to  the  ideal  end. 

»  Taylor:  The  Individual  and  the  State,  p.  52. 

2  Willoughby:  An  Examination  of  the  Nature  of  the  State, 
p.  318. 


1 66  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

the  affairs  of  life.1  Between  these  classes  is  to  be 
found  every  grade  and  shade  of  difference. 

Furthermore,  in  all  theory  and  in  all  life,  there 
has  been  a  constant  conflict  between  the  claims 
of  those  who  urge  large  governmental  supervision 
and  of  those  who  urge  as  little  governmental  in- 
terference as  possible,  leaving  the  individual  free 
to  enjoy  the  greatest  degree  of  liberty.  It  has  ap- 
peared to  many  as  if  the  state  and  the  individual 
were  opposing  factors,  and  that  the  higher  the 
state  is  raised,  the  lower  the  individual  is  de- 
pressed; that  the  more  power  is  conferred  on  the 
state,  the  less  liberty  and  opportunity  is  given  to 
the  individual.  On  closer  inspection,  however, 
it  will  be  found  that  it  is  possible — at  least  within 
certain  limits — to  elevate  the  state,  increase  its 
power,  enlarge  its  jurisdiction,  and  increase  its 
functions,  and  at  the  same  time  raise  the  standard 
of  the  individual,  multiplying  his  opportunities 
for  development,  and  give  him  greater  possibilities 
and  a  larger  life.  The  only  way  to  raise  the 
nation  is  to  raise  the  average  individual.  It  is  a 
mistake  to  think  that  whatever  adds  to  the  state 
subtracts  from  the  individual.  ''Error  must  re- 
sult from  such  a  position,  not  merely  because 
of  its  unscientific  arithmetical  conception  of  the 
relation  of  the  individual  to  the  state,  but  also 

1  Wilson:  The  State,  p.  629. 


The  Objects  of  the  State          167 

because  it  leaves  entirely  out  of  account  a  third 
most  important  factor,  an  intermediate  organisa- 
tion, society.  The  state  and  society  are  not 
identical  and  must  not  be  confounded.  .  .  . 
The  distinction  between  the  state  and  society  lies, 
not  in  the  presence  or  absence  of  coercion,  but  in 
the  presence  or  absence  of  law,  which  is  something 
more  than  mere  force."1  It  will  be  found  that  in 
the  last  analysis  the  best  interests  of  the  individual 
and  of  the  state  coincide,  and  that  co-operation 
is  the  line  of  development. 

A  distinction  must  be  drawn  between  political 
and  individual  freedom.  Political  freedom  applies 
to  the  degree  in  which  the  people  participate 
generally  in  the  affairs  of  the  state,  or  at  least 
direct  the  manner  in  which  its  powers  shall  be 
exercised.  Individual  freedom  refers  to  the  degree 
in  which  the  "private  rights  of  life,  liberty,  and 
property  are  secured.  "2  Either  one  may  exist  in 
a  high  degree  and  the  other  in  a  low  degree.  A 
high  degree  of  political  freedom  may  be  found,  as  it 
was  among  the  early  Teutons,  with  relatively  small 
protection  to  private  rights.  Individual  rights 
may  be  well  protected,  as  under  the  Roman 
Empire,  with  little  political  freedom.  It  is  like- 

»  Taylor:  The  Individual  and  the  State,  pp.  38,  40. 
8  Willoughby:  An  Examination  of  the  Nature  of  the  State, 
pp.  312,  313. 


1 68  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

wise  true  that  in  a  democracy  there  may  be  little 
respect  for  individual  rights,  while  in  a  monarchy 
there  may  be  found  a  high  regard  for  them. 

The  mere  enumeration  of  various  theories  held 
as  to  the  aim  of  the  state  would  be  no  small  task. 
It  will  be  sufficient  to  notice  some  of  the  more 
important.  Aristotle  declares:  "Every  state  is  a 
community  of  some  kind,  and  every  community 
is  established  with  a  view  to  some  good;  for  man- 
kind always  act  in  order  to  obtain  that  which  they 
think  good.  But,  if  all  communities  aim  at  some 
good,  the  state  or  political  community,  which  is 
the  highest  of  all,  and  which  embraces  all  the 
rest,  aims,  and  in  a  greater  degree  than  any  other, 
at  the  highest  good.  .  .  .  The  state  comes  into 
existence,  originating  in  the  bare  needs  of  life, 
and  continuing  in  existence  for  the  sake  of  a  good 
life.  .  .  .  Justice  is  the  bond  of  men  in  states, 
and  the  administration  of  justice,  which  is  the 
determination  of  what  is  just,  is  the  principle  of 
order  in  political  society."1  "Complete  life  in 
the  associated  state"  is  Aristotle's  view  of  the 
aim  of  the  state.  It  must  be  remembered,  how- 
ever, that  the  citizens  for  whose  welfare  Aristotle 
conceived  the  state  to  exist  were  only  a  limited 
and  privileged  class  of  wealth,  culture,  and 
leisure.  Slaves — even  skilled  labourers — were 

1  Aristotle:  Politics,  i.,  i,  ». 


The  Objects  of  the  State          169 

not  included  in  the  government.  Their  interests, 
their  comfort,  and  their  welfare  were  not  to  be 
overlooked  by  the  statesman,  but  they  were 
deemed  incapable  of  true  happiness.1 

According  to  the  ancient  view  in  general,  and 
particularly  that  of  the  Greeks,  the  theory  was 
that  the  individual  serves  the  state,  not  the  state 
the  individual.  The  state  was  viewed  as  the 
highest  aim,  the  perfection  of  humanity.  It  was, 
therefore,  an  end  in  itself.  "The  welfare  of 
private  men  was  therefore  unhesitatingly  sacri- 
ficed to  that  of  the  state,  and  in  fact  the  former 
was  only  so  far  justified  and  valuable  as  it  was 
serviceable  to  the  welfare  of  the  state."2 

Dante  adopted  Aristotle's  doctrine  that  the 
merit  of  government  may  be  tested  by  its  pro- 
motion of  the  general  welfare  of  all  its  subjects. 
He  declared:  "Since  the  monarch  is  full  of  love 
for  men,  ...  he  will  have  all  men  good,  which 
cannot  be  if  they  live  under  perverted  constitu- 
tions .  .  .  and  the  aim  of  such  rightful  common- 
wealths is  liberty,  to  wit  that  men  may  live  for 
their  own  sake.  .  .  .  Though  a  consul  or  king  in 
regard  of  means  be  the  lords  of  others,  yet  in 
regard  to  the  end  they  are  the  servants  of  others : 

1  Pollock:  An  Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Science  of 
Politics,  p.  28. 

a  Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  287. 


170  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

and  most  of  all  the  monarch,  who  without  doubt 
is  to  be  deemed  the  servant  of  all."1  In  Dante, 
the  institution  of  a  universalis  pax  is  the  aim  and 
object  of  the  empire.2  This  thought  was  ex- 
pressed by  the  Councils  of  Paris  and  Worms,  829 
A.D.,  which  declared  it  to  be  the  aim  of  govern- 
ment "to  rule  the  folk  with  righteousness  and 
equity,  to  preserve  peace  and  unity."3 

Marsilius  of  Padua  held  that  government  is 
established  to  maintain  peace,  and  that  the  state 
exists  to  render  the  higher  life  possible.4  He  has 
in  mind  a  solicitude  on  the  part  of  the  state  for 
the  bene  vivere  of  its  citizens,  on  earth  and  in 
heaven  as  well,  and  therefore  includes  morals  and 
general  welfare  in  its  aims.  In  short,  he  makes 
the  church  a  state  institution.  The  line  of  demar- 
cation between  church  and  state  is  always  a 
line  between  two  classes  of  affairs,  and  not  a  line 
between  two  classes  of  people.5  The  state  regu- 
lates and  administers  the  affairs  of  the  church, 
admitting  to  the  priesthood,  regulating  its  func- 
tions, appointing,  paying,  and  removing  clergymen. 

1  Pollock:  An  Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Science  of 
Politics,  pp.  37,  38. 

2  Gierke:  Political  Theories  of  the  Middle  Age,  p.  188. 
«  Ibid.,  p.  142. 

4  Defensor  Pads,  i.,  i.  Bullowa,  History  of  the  Theory  of 
Sovereignty,  p.  21. 

s  Defensor  Pacis,  i.,  4-6;  ii.,  2,  7,  14,  17,  18,  21. 


The  Objects  of  the  State          171 

The  state  itself  should  issue,  at  all  events  it  should 
authorise,  interdicts,  excommunications,  fasts, 
feasts,  and  other  ecclesiastical  acts.  Education 
belongs  exclusively  to  the  state.  The  church  can 
have  no  temporal  power  or  authority  except  as 
given  by  the  state.  Councils  should  be  summoned 
by  the  civil  government.  Church  property  is  at 
the  disposal  of  the  government,  and  it  may  be 
freely  taxed  therefor,  and,  if  necessary,  may  be 
secularised  and  sold  by  the  state.1 

Thomas  Aquinas  regarded  the  virtuous  life 
as  the  object  of  the  state.  The  virtus  humana  of 
the  people  is  the  means  employed  by  human 
government  to  realise,  or  at  least  cultivate  and 
promote  the  virtus  divina,  which  the  church  aims 
to  secure.2 

Generally  speaking,  the  mediaeval  view  of  the 
state  was  that  of  an  indirect  theocracy,  according 
to  which  the  ruler  was  looked  upon  as  God's 
vicegerent.  Unity  of  belief  and  of  creed  were 
fundamental  doctrines  of  that  age.3  Islam,  too, 
viewed  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth  as  entrusted 
by  Him  to  the  Sultan.  The  theocratic  theory 
of  the  duty  of  the  state  bases  it  upon  service  to 

1  Gierke:     Political  Theories  of  the  Middle  Age,  pp.  189, 
191,  192. 

2  De  Reg.  Princ.,  i.,  14.     Gierke:    Political  Theories  of  the 
Middle  Age,  p.  189. 

»  Bluntschli:    The  Theory  of  the  State,   p.  58. 


172  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

God,  and  the  establishment  of  His  kingdom 
upon  earth.  Its  aim  is  to  establish  and  maintain 
God's  rule  and  commands  in  society,  including 
justice,  discipline  and  morality.  The  Reforma- 
tion energetically  revived  the  theocratic  view  of 
the  aim  of  civil  government.  The  Protestant 
reformers  generally  maintained  a  Christian  aim 
and  a  divine  nature  for  civil  authority.  Melanch- 
thon  declared,  however,  that  rulers  must  not  act 
contrary  to  the  will  of  the  people  for  they  have 
received  their  power  from  them.1  He  viewed  the 
ultimate  aim  of  the  state  to  be  the  establishment 
among  men  of  the  true  knowledge  of  God,  and 
described  the  government  as  the  guardian  of  the 
two  tables  of  the  law.  The  magistrate,  therefore, 
according  to  his  view,  should  forbid  heresy  and 
punish  heretics.2 

John  Stuart  Mill  fixed  the  limit  of  the  state's 
activity  by  self-protection.3  In  his  view,  the 
great  aim  of  government  is  progress,  which  neces- 
sarily includes  the  maintenance  of  order.  There 
must  be  an  understanding  and  recognition  of  the 
purposes  to  be  promoted  and  the  objects  to  be 

1  Scherger:  Evolution  of  Modern  Liberty,  p.  105. 

2  Geffcken:  Church  and  State,  i.  328.     Dunning:  Political 
Theories  from  Luther  to  Montesquieu,  p.  14  et  seq. 

3  Pollock:  An  Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Science  of 
Politics,  p.  124. 


The  Objects  of  the  State          173 

accomplished.1  Liberty  for  each  individual  is 
the  absolute  end.  Herbert  Spencer  repeated  the 
thought  of  Kant  that  "it  is  the  duty  and  eventual 
tendency  of  society  to  allow  the  widest  liberty 
to  each  of  its  component  individual  members 
compatible  with  the  equal  liberty  of  all." 

Locke's  view  of  the  end  of  government  is  the 
"good  of  mankind";2  and  Professor  Huxley 
declared  this  "the  noblest  and  at  the  same  time 
briefest  statement  of  the  purpose  of  government" 
known  to  him.3  It  is  true  that  Locke  considered 
the  great  and  chief  end  of  men  uniting  into  com- 
monwealths, and  putting  themselves  under  govern- 
ment to  be  the  preservation  of  their  property.4 
To  Wilhelm  von  Humboldt,  "the  maintenance 
of  security,  as  well  with  regard  to  the  attacks  of 
foreign  enemies  as  to  the  danger  of-  internal 
discord,  constitutes  the  true  end  of  the  state,  and 
must  especially  occupy  its  activity."5  William 
of  Ockham  held  that  government  should  promote 
the  liberty  and  exclude  the  slavery  of  its  subjects.6 

*  M'Kechnie:  The  State  and  the  Individual,  p.  79. 
2  On  Civil  Government,  ii.,  par.  229. 

*  Method  and  Results,  p.  278.      M'Kechnie:  The  State  and 
the  Individual,  p.  75. 

*  On  Civil  Government,  ii.,  par.  124. 

5  Sphere  and  Duties  of  Government,  p.  53. 

6  Octo  Quaestiones,  iii.,  5.     Gierke:  Political  Theories  of  the 
Middle  Age,  p.  142. 


174  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

In  marked  contrast  with  this  more  limited 
activity,  Burke,  the  English  philosopher  and 
statesman,  looked  upon  the  state  as  "a  partner- 
ship in  all  science,  a  partnership  in  all  art,  a 
partnership  in  every  virtue,  and  in  all  perfection. " 1 
Hegel  maintained  that  morality  (Sititickkeit)  and 
the  application  and  realisation  of  the  moral  law 
is  the  end  of  the  state.2 

To  a  political  writer  of  our  own  day,  the  modern 
state's  chief  function  is  to  punish  and  prevent 
wrong.3  To  another,  the  object  of  the  state 
should  include  the  perfect  development  of  all  its 
citizens  in  the  highest,  noblest,  and  fullest  form 
of  social,  political  and  individual  life;  i.e.,  the 
highest  present  welfare  and  future  perfection  of 
the  individual  and  of  humanity.4  The  end  of  gov- 
ernment, according  to  another,  is  the  facilitation 
and  accomplishment  of  the  objects  of  organ- 
ised society.5  To  Bluntschli,  it  is  "the  develop- 
ment of  the  national  capacities,  the  perfecting 
of  the  national  life,  and,  finally,  its  completion; 
provided,  of  course,  that  the  process  of  moral  and 
political  development  shall  not  be  opposed  to  the 

1  Pollock:  An  Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Science  of 
Politics,  pp.  125,  126. 

2  Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  299. 

3  Taylor:  The  Individual  and  the  State,  p.  50. 

*  M'Kechnie:  The  State  and  the  Individual,  p.  74. 
5  Wilson:  The  State,  p.  639. 


The  Objects  of  the  State          175 

destiny  of  humanity. ' ' *  This  spirit  of  international 
helpfulness  is  recognised  by  another  writer  who 
declares:  ''That  the  state  should  act  as  an  individ- 
ual, should  maintain  good  faith,  clemency,  and 
moderation,  should  endeavour  to  further  the 
world's  progress — these  are  some  of  the  most 
advanced  political  ideas  of  the  age  in  which  we 
live."2 

Turning  now  to  Luther's  views  on  the  subject, 
we  find  that  he  maintained  that  civil  rule  is  to  be 
conducted  with  a  view  solely  to  the  best  interests 
of  the  people  and  of  the  country  as  a  whole. 
Government,  in  short,  is  to  be  in  the  interests  of 
the  governed.  Whatever  the  form  of  govern- 
ment may  be,  it  is  a  sacred  trust  to  be  executed 
as  a  government  for  the  people. 

In  his  Appeal  to  the  German  Nobility,  Luther 
insists  on  the  principle  that  civil  authority  has 
jurisdiction  over  all  matters  involving  money, 
property,  and  person  or  honour.3  After  indicat- 
ing a  number  of  reforms  that  should  be  instituted 
by  the  civil  authorities,  he  says,  in  the  same 
document:  "In  all,  however,  that  I  have  said 

i  Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  300. 

*  Jenks:  Law  and  Politics  in  the  Middle  Ages,  p.  69. 

3  Luther  says:  "  Was  Geld,  Gut  und  Leib  oder  Ehre  anbe- 
trifft,  den  weltlichen  Richtern  lassen. "  Also  see  Dunning: 
History  of  Political  Theories  from  Luther  to  Montesquieu,  p.  9. 


176  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

above,  my  object  has  been  to  show  how  much  good 
temporal  authority  may  do,  and  what  is  the  duty 
of  all  authorities,  so  that  every  person  may  learn 
what  a  serious  thing  it  is  to  rule  and  have  the 
chief  place.  It  is  the  duty  of  those  in  authority 
to  seek  the  good  of  their  subjects."1 

In  a  later  tract,2  Luther  asserts  that  the  Chris- 
tian prince  must  get  rid  of  the  idea  that  he  is  to 
rule  by  force.  Cursed  is  the  life  that  is  lived 
and  sought  for  one's  own  use  and  benefit.  Cursed 
are  all  works  that  are  not  done  in  loveV  Govern- 
ment is  established  and  administered  in  love  when 
it  is  carried  on  not  for  one's  own  pleasure,  use, 
honour  and  convenience,  but  for  the  benefit, 
honour  and  safety  of  others.  The  prince  must 
hold  justice  in  his  hand  as  firmly  as  the  sword 
and  mete  it  out,  sternly  on  the  one  hand  and 
tempered  with  justice  on  the  other  hand,  as  good 
reason  may  dictate,  so  that  justice  may  rule  in 
all  things,  and  that  reason  may  remain  the  highest 
law  and  master  of  all  laws.  Above  all,  the  ruler 
is  to  consider  his  subjects  and  have  his  heart  right 
towards  them.  He  does  this  when  he  seeks,  with 


1  An  den  christlichen  Adel  deutscher  Nation  von  des  christ- 
lichen  Standes  Besserung  (1520).      Weimar  ed.,  6  Band,  381 
et  seq. 

2  Von  weltlicher  Oberkeit,  wie  weit  man  ihr  Gehorsam  schuldig 
sei  (1523).     Weimar  ed.,  n  Band,  229  et  seq. 


The  Objects  of  the  State          177 

all  wisdom,  to  make  himself  useful  and  serviceable 
to  them.1  Let  him  not  think:  "Land  and  people 
are  mine,  I  will  do  with  them  as  I  please";  but, 
"I  am  of  the  land  and  of  the  people,  and  I  must 
act  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  of  benefit  and  service 
to  them."  He  is  not  to  seek  how  he  can  be 
overbearing  and  imperious,  but  how  his  people 
may  be  protected  and  defended  in  peace.  Imitat- 
ing the  spirit  and  the  example  of  Christ,  the  ruler 
is  not  to  seek  his  own  interests  in  his  subjects, 
but  their  interests,  and  he  is  to  serve,  protect  and 
defend  them,  ruling  solely  that  they,  and  not  he 
himself,  may  have  wealth  and  profit  therefrom. 
Let  the  prince  thus  in  his  heart  renounce  his 
power  and  authority  and  consider  the  needs  of 
his  subjects  and  treat  these  needs  as  if  they  were 
his  own.  In  short,  the  duty  of  the  prince  is  four- 
fold: (i)  towards  God,  with  confident  trust  and 
devout  prayer;  (2)  towards  his  subjects,  with 
love  and  Christian  service;  (3)  towards  his 
counsellors  and  his  mighty  men,  with  clear  mind 
and  unprejudiced  judgment;  and  (4)  towards 
evil-doers,  with  discriminating  earnestness  and 
firmness. 

In  writing  about  the  uprisings  of  the  peasants, 
Luther  urged  the  princes  to  deal  more  kindly  and 

1  Frederick  the  Great  echoed  this  same  thought  when  he 
declared  of  himself:  "Ich  bin  der  erste  Diener  des  Staates." 


178  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

considerately  with  their  subjects.     In  his  Exhor- 
tation to  Peace  he  says1 : 

In  the  first  place,  we  have  no  one  to  thank  for 
such  disorders  but  you  princes  and  lords,  especially 
you  blind  bishops  and  insane  priests  and  monks, 
who  even  now  obdurately  cease  not  to  grind  and  flay 
the  poor  common  man  to  keep  up  your  pomp  and 
pride,  till  he  neither  can  nor  will  endure  it  longer. 
The  sword  is  on  your  neck,  while  you  think  to  sit  so 
fast  in  the  saddle  that  none  can  unhorse  you.  This 
security  and  presumption  will  break  your  necks,  as 
you  will  see.  .  .  .  Yet,  unless  God  be  moved  by  our 
repentance  to  avert  it,  this  conspiracy  of  the  peasants 
must  lead  to  the  ruin,  wasting  and  desolation  of  our 
German  land  by  horrible  murder  and  bloodshed. 
For  know,  dear  lords,  it  is  God's  doing  that  men 
neither  can,  nor  will,  nor  should,  endure  your  oppres- 
sion any  longer.  You  must  change  your  ways,  and 
yield  to  God's  word.  If  you  do  not  do  it  kindly 
and  voluntarily,  you  must  do  it  under  compulsion 
and  ruin.  If  these  peasants  do  not  accomplish  it, 
others  will.  .  .  .  If  you  will  take  ad  vice,  my  dear  lords, 
for  God's  sake  give  place  a  little  to  anger.  A  wagon- 
load  of  hay  should  turn  aside  for  the  drunken  man. 
How  much  more  should  you  cease  from  your  rage 
and  tyranny,  and  treat  the  peasants  reasonably, 
as  drunken  or  erring.  Do  not  enter  upon  a  strife 

1  Ermahnung  zum  Frieden  auf  die  zwolf  Artikel  der  Bauer  - 
schaft  in  Schwdben  (1525).  Weimar  ed.,  18  Band,  279  et  seq. 


The  Objects  of  the  State          179 

with  them,  for  you  know  not  what  the  end  may  be. 
Try  kind  means,  lest  a  spark  be  kindled  that  may 
light  such  a  flame  over  all  Germany  as  none  can 
quench.  ...  A  civil  ruler  is  not  set  in  authority 
that  he  may  seek  his  own  interests  and  pleasures 
from  his  subjects,  but  that  he  may  secure  their  best 
interests. 


In  his  later  years,  Luther  wrote  Count  Albrecht 
of  Mansfeld,1  warning  and  urging  him  to  cease 
his  tyrannical  and  oppressive  treatment  of  his 
subjects.  In  that  letter  he  exhorts  the  count  not 
to  think  that  his  lordship  and  all  possessions  are 
his  own.  God  will  not  suffer  it.  The  peasants, 
burghers,  and  nobles  have  their  own  possessions, 
although  under  certain  feudal  obligations,  in 
accordance  with  imperial  law,  but  nevertheless 
confirmed  or  sanctioned  by  God,  and  thus  like- 
wise from  divine  right.  He  who  wrongfully  takes 
the  property  of  others  is  in  God's  sight  a  thief  and 
a  robber.  Luther  warns  the  count  of  the  result 
of  such  an  example,  were  it  to  prevail.  If  the 
overlord  were  to  appropriate  the  possessions  of 
his  under! ord,  the  nobleman  those  of  the  peasant, 
the  prince  those  of  the  nobleman  and  the  count, 


1  Brief  von  1542.     See  Bluntschli:  Geschichte  der  neueren 
Statswissenschaft,  Allgemeines  Statsrecht  und  Politik,  p.  65. 


i8o  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

it  would  lead  to  a  government  worse  than  that 
of  the  Turk,  yes,  to  a  devilish  regime. 

Luther  insists  again  and  again  on  the  fulfilment 
of  duty  in  the  varied  relations  of  life.1  The  prince 
is  not  to  rule  in  the  interests  of  a  certain  class  or 
classes,  but  on  behalf  of  the  masses  and  of  the 
people  as  a  whole.  Luther  does  not  aim  to 
present  a  theory  of  the  state,  but  a  system  of 
Christian  doctrine.  He  does  not  aim  to  announce 
a  law,  but  to  exhort  to  pious  fulfilment  or  per- 
formance of  duty.  He  is  in  all  things  a  theologian, 
not  a  jurist,  a  preacher  and  soul-saver,  not  a 
statesman.2  He  holds  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
every  community,  council,  or  government  to 
prevent  and  abolish  anything  that  is  contrary 
to  God's  will  and  harmful  to  men  in  body  and 
soul.  His  conception  of  the  state  and  of  the  duty 
of  the  individual  to  his  neighbour  leads  directly 
to  that  of  Hegel.3  Luther  viewed  questions  con- 
cerning marriage,  political  relations,  peace  and 


»  Speaking  of  the  momentous  changes  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  Mr.  Bryce  says:  "A  new  explanation  of  the  nature  of 
political  society  was  needed;  and  from  that  time  onward  new 
theories  of  state  power  began  at  intervals  to  appear.  "  Bryce: 
Studies  in  History  and  Jurisprudence,  p.  532. 

2  Bluntschli:  Geschichte  der  neueren  Statswissenschaft,  All- 
gemeines  Statsrecht  und  Politik,  p.  62. 

3  Figgis :  Studies  of  Political  Thought  from  Gerson  to  Gro- 
tius,  p.    71. 


The  Objects  of  the  State          181 

war,  alliances,  obedience  to  legitimate  authority, 
rebellion,  and  such  matters  in  the  light  of  Biblical, 
particularly  Christian,  principles.1 

Luther's  own  attitude  is  too  often  confused 
with  the  developments  and  conditions  of  the 
following  decades  and  centuries.  He  himself 
lived  under  an  imperial  confederation  in  which 
were  included,  inter  alia,  free  cities  with  a  con- 
siderable degree  of  local  government.  He  thor- 
oughly believed  that  the  people  of  a  country 
should  govern  themselves,2  though  he  had  no 
occasion  to  express  a  preference  for  any  particular 
form  of  government.  All  government,  according 

»  Raumer:  Ueber  die  geschichtliche  Entwickelung  der  Be- 
griffe  von  Recht,  Staat  und  Politik,  p.  31. 

2  In  the  early  days  of  Germany,  it  appears  that  the  ruler 
was  elected  by  popular  suffrage.  Conrad  I,  according  to  some 
historians,  was  elected  by  all  the  Franks,  though  others 
declare  it  was  by  the  princes  and  chief  men,  and  yet  others 
maintain  that  it  was  by  all  the  nations.  Conrad  II  was 
elected  in  the  year  1024  by  the  chief  men,  and  his  election 
was  confirmed  by  the  people.  The  same  practice  was  fol- 
lowed in  other  later  elections.  In  the  early  imperial  diets, 
every  freeman  was  entitled  to  be  present.  Prescott:  Robert- 
son's History  of  the  Reign  of  the  Emperor  Charles  V,  i.,  409, 
411.  All  through  the  later  Middle  Ages,  beginning  with  the 
close  of  the  thirteenth  century,  it  was  a  doctrine  quite  gen- 
erally accepted  that  civil  government  rests  on  the  consent  of 
the  people,  who  have  an  original  right  to  choose  their  own 
form  of  government.  See  Sidgwick:  The  Development  of 
European  Polity,  p.  332;  and  Merriam:  History  of  the  Theory 
of  Sovereignty  since  Rousseau,  p.  12. 


1 82  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

to  his  view,  is  to  be  on  behalf  of  the  governed. 
In  the  light  of  the  experiences  of  the  peasants' 
revolts,  he  saw  reason  to  doubt  the  wisdom  of 
giving  the  unfitted,  untrained,  and  illiterate  peas- 
ant of  his  day  a  voice  in  the  direct  administration 
of  the  government.  At  the  same  time,  no  one 
urged  more  strongly  than  did  he  the  education 
of  the  young,  so  that  they  might  be  trained  to 
serve  the  state  intelligently.  Similar  limitations 
have  been  placed  upon  the  right  of  franchise  in  the 
most  enlightened  nations.  Various  states  of  the 
United  States  in  our  own  day  have  disfranchised 
certain  classes  of  the  population  on  the  alleged 
ground  that  they  are  not  fitted  to  participate  in  the 
government.  '  *  In  order  that  popular  government 
should  work  prosperously,"  wisely  declares  a  re- 
cent writer,  "two  things  are  above  all  requisite: 
first,  the  people  must  be  free  to  express  their  will 
at  the  polls;  and,  second,  the  people  must  be  suffi- 
ciently enlightened  to  express  a  will  that  is  wise 
and  honest,  and  not  one  that  is  foolish  or  corrupt. " i 
Kant  and  his  followers  exclude  from  the  juris- 
diction of  the  state  all  matters  but  juridical.  They 
maintain  that  the  sphere  6f  the  state  is  one  of 
law,  and  that  morals  are  to  be  regulated  by  each 
individual.2  Kant  declared  that  the  object  of 

»  Kelly:  Evolution  and  Effort,  pp.  124,  125, 

2  M'Kechnie:  The  State  and  the  Individual,  p.  95. 


The  Objects  of  the  State          183 

the  state — its  end  and  safety — does  not  consist  in 
the  welfare  or  happiness  of  the  citizens,  but  in  the 
agreement  of  the  constitution  with  the  principles 
of  law. 

This  legal  theory  notwithstanding,  an  enlight- 
ened state  cannot  help  but  consider  matters 
involving  moral  questions.  In  its  rule  and  govern- 
ment over  its  own  subjects  and  in  its  relations 
with  other  nations  alike,  such  questions  are 
constantly  arising.  Relations  between  man  and 
man,  between  nation  and  nation,  and  between 
man  and  nation  all  involve  moral  considerations. 
So  far  as  these  questions  affect  the  external  life 
of  men  in  society,  they  properly  come  within  the 
realm  of  the  state.  Not  that  the  state  lays  down 
or  should  lay  down  fast  rules  as  to  any  given 
system  of  morals;  but,  for  its  own  protection,  as 
well  as  its  own  peace,  it  must  punish  and  suppress 
public  immorality  and  give  every  encouragement 
to  the  inculcation  of  good  morals.1  It  cannot 
leave  the  subject  alone,  however  much  it  may 
wish  to  do  so.  "The  state  is  not  a  merely  eco- 
nomic partnership,  even  as  it  is  not  a  merely 
jural  agreement.  The  state  is  an  organic  unity. 
It  moves  with  a  moral  energy.  It  sets  itself  for 

1  The  right  of  the  state  to  promote  morality  is  discussed  in 
Green :  Lectures  on  the  Principles  of  Political  Obligation,  pp. 
206-210. 


1 84  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

the  highest  weal  of  each  and  all."1  Recognised 
standards  of  morals  are  to  be  found,  either  openly 
expressed,  or  ill-concealed  between  the  lines,  in 
the  laws  of  every  civilised  country.  "The  *  legal 
state*  may  figure  prominently  in  the  schools,  but 
it  is  the  'moral  state*  which  takes  its  place  among 
the  great  powers  of  the  world."2 

Martin  Luther,  viewing  the  state  as  fulfilling 
a  human  necessity  in  the  divine  dispensation 
of  the  world,  maintained  that  it  is  our  highest 
privilege  to  serve  God  by  serving  one  another.3 
He  applies  this  principle  to  the  political  as  well 
as  to  the  social  and  religious  world. 

»  Chamberlain:  The  State, — its  Nature,  Origin  and  Func- 
tions, p.  15. 

»  M'Kechnie:  The  State  and  the  Individual,  p.  97. 

a  "No  one  can  read  Luther's  utterances  without  perceiving 
at  once  that  he  enunciated  the  principle  of  social  reconstruc- 
tion; namely,  that  we  are  not  competitors  but  brothers,  and 
that  it  is  our  highest  privilege  to  serve  God  by  serving  one 
another.  "  Nuelsen:  Luther  the  Leader,  p.  238. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  STATE 

THE  powers  which  belong  to  and  proceed 
from  the  real  body-politic — the  sovereignty 
of  the  state — constitute  government  in  its  differ- 
ent functions,  operating  in  and  through  its 
various  departments.  These  powers  may  be 
"  divided,  distributed,  granted,  reserved,  or  re- 
voked,"1 at  the  will  of  the  sovereign  power. 

The  separation  of  the  principal  powers  of  the 
state2  has  been  recognised  since  the  time  of 
Aristotle.3  He  terms  them  deliberative,  magis- 
terial, and  judicial.  Governments  have  changed 
with  the  centuries,  and  so  has  this  classification 
of  powers;  yet  in  a  general  way  Aristotle's  division 
corresponds  with  the  modern  one  of  legislative, 

1  Tapp:  The  Story  of  Anglo-Saxon  Institutions,  p.  5. 

2  These   principal   or   essential   functions   and   powers   of 
government  are  called  constituent  functions  by   Woodrow 
Wilson.     The  State,  p.  613. 

3  Aristotle:  Politics,  iv.,  14-16. 

185 


i86  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

executive,1  and  judicial  powers.  These  powers 
are  variously  distributed  under  different  govern- 
ments2 but  are  generally  recognised  as  separate 
and  distinct.3 

Bodin  is  recognised  as  the  first  to  maintain 
that  the  prince  ought  not  to  administer  justice 
personally,  but  should  leave  judicial  matters  in 
the  hands  of  independent  judges.  He  argues 
that  if  legislative  and  executive  powers  were 
united  in  the  same  person,  or  even  in  the  same 
body  of  magistrates,  there  would  be  no  liberty, 
because  people  would  be  afraid  that  the  monarch 
or  the  senate  might  make  tyrannical  laws  in  order 
to  administer  them  tyrannically.  There  would  be 
no  liberty,  again,  he  declares  further,  if  the  judicial 
power  be  not  separated  from  the  legislative  and 
executive.  If  it  be  joined  to  the  legislative  power 

»  Bluntschli  considers  the  term  "executive"  unfortunate, 
and  prefers  "government"  or  "administration."  Theory  of 
the  State,  pp.  490,  491. 

2  Under  our  own  government,  for  example,  the  chief  execu- 
tive  participates   in   legislation.     A   part  of   the  legislative 
power — the  United  States  Senate — participates  in  the  work 
of  the  executive,  such  as  confirming  nominations  to  certain 
appointments. 

3  "The  legislative,  administrative,  and  judicial  functions 
are  not  regarded  as  militating  against  the  essential  and  ulti- 
mate  unity   of   the   principle   from   which    they   emanate. '' 
Merriam:  History  of  the  Theory  of  Sovereignty  since  Rousseau, 
p.  223. 


The  Functions  of  the  State        187 

the  life  and  death  of  the  citizens  may  be  arbitrarily 
disposed  of,  for  the  judge  will  be  legislator.  If 
it  be  joined  to  the  executive  power,  the  judge  may 
have  the  force  of  an  oppressor.1 

Montesquieu  was  the  first  effectively  to  call  for  a 
subjective  as  well  as  objective  separation  of  these 
great  functions  of  the  state,  that  is,  that  the  differ- 
ent functions  should  be  exercised  by  different 
persons.2  Not  that  there  is  or  could  be  an  abso- 
lute separation,  in  the  sense  that  the  several 
powers  are  co-ordinate,  independent,  and  equal; 
for  there  must  be  an  interdependence,  as  between 
the  various  members  of  the  human  body,  and 
through  it  all  there  must  be  a  regulating  and 
controlling  power,  a  power  that  determines  the 
laws  themselves  and  the  relations  that  shall  exist 
between  the  parts.  This  power  is  the  legislative. 

Too  much  stress  cannot  be  placed  upon  the 
importance,  indeed  the  necessity,  of  each  of  these 
general  powers  of  government  keeping  well  within 
its  sphere.  George  Washington,  in  speaking  of 
this  matter,  said: 

It  is  important,  likewise,  that  the  habits  of  thinking 
in  a  free  country  should  inspire  caution,  in  those 
intrusted  with  its  administration,  to  confine  them- 
selves within  their  respective  constitutional  spheres, 

»  Esprit  des  Lois,  xi.,  6. 

»  Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  487. 


i88  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

avoiding  in  the  exercise  of  the  powers  of  one  depart- 
ment to  encroach  upon  another.  The  spirit  of  en- 
croachment tends  to  consolidate  the  powers  of  all  the 
departments  in  one,  and  thus  to  create,  whatever 
the  form  of  government,  a  real  despotism.  A  just 
estimate  of  that  love  of  power  and  proneness  to  abuse 
it,  which  predominates  in  the  human  heart  is  suffi- 
cient to  satisfy  us  of  the  truth  of  this  position.  The 
necessity  of  reciprocal  checks  in  the  exercise  of  political 
power  by  dividing  and  distributing  it  into  different 
depositories,  and  constituting  each  the  guardian  of 
the  public  weal  against  invasions  by  the  others,  has 
been  evinced  by  experiments,  ancient  and  modern, 
some  of  them  in  our  country  and  under  our  own  eyes. 
To  preserve  them  must  be  as  necessary  as  to  institute 
them.* 

A  full  recognition  of  this  check  and  counter- 
check, as  viewed  in  the  days  of  the  establishment 
of  the  United  States  government,  is  shown  in  a 
letter  written  by  John  Adams  to  John  Taylor. 
In  it,  be  says: 

First,  the  states  are  balanced  against  the  general 
government.  Second,  the  house  of  representatives 
is  balanced  against  the  senate,  and  the  senate  against 
the  house.  Third,  the  executive  authority  is  in 
some  degree  balanced  against  the  legislature.  Fourth, 

i  Washington's  Farewell  Address,  1796.  In  Bryan:  The 
World's  Famous  Orations,  viii.,  99,  100. 


The  Functions  of  the  State        189 

the  judiciary  is  balanced  against  the  legislature,  the 
executive,  and  the  state  governments.  Fifth,  the 
senate  is  balanced  against  the  president  in  all  appoint- 
ments to  office,  and  in  all  treaties.  Sixth,  the  people 
hold  in  their  hands  the  balance  against  their  own 
representatives  by  periodical  elections.  Seventh, 
the  legislatures  of  the  several  states  are  balanced 
against  the  senate  by  sexennial  elections.  Eighth, 
the  electors  are  balanced  against  the  people  in  choice 
of  president  and  vice-president.1 

In  the  days  of  feudalism,  the  baron,  the  prince, 
the  king,  owned  the  state.  It  belonged  to  him. 
He  was  himself  the  state.  The  functions  of 
government  were  simply  the  functions  of  pro- 
prietorship. The  state  had  become,  under  the 
feudal  system,  merely  a  private  estate.  The 
conscience  of  the  prince  was  the  only  standard  of 
justice;  the  power  of  the  prince  the  only  conclusive 
test  of  prerogative.2 

But  in  the  age  with  which  we  are  concerned, 
the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century,  feudalism 
was  rapidly  giving  way.  Notwithstanding  the 
limitations  on  the  powers  of  the  state,  it  had 
various  functions  united  in  its  internal  administra- 
tion. The  prince  possessed  executive  and  judicial 

1  Willoughby:  An  Examination  of  the  Nature  of  the  State, 
P-  399- 

2  Wilson:  The  State,  pp.  6 1 8,  619. 


1 90  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

power,  and  participated  in  legislation.  The  state 
assemblies  exercised  judicial  as  well  as  legislative 
functions.  Without  entering  into  a  consideration 
or  discussion  of  their  form,  their  nature,  or  their 
subjective  separation,  Martin  Luther  recognised 
the  different  spheres  of  these  three  great  functions.1 
He  appealed  for  the  enactment  of  certain  legisla- 
tion; he  urged  the  execution  of  the  laws;  he 
declared  that  matters  of  legal  right  and  of  constitu- 
tional law  should  be  left  to  the  jurists  and  the 
courts.  These  several  departments  of  the  govern- 
ment are  under  obligation  to  fulfil  the  general 
aims  and  objects  of  the  state — i.e.,  preserve  the 
peace,  protect  the  good,  punish  the  wicked,  develop 
the  state  and  its  people,  and  maintain  itself 
against  foreign  attack  or  aggression.  These  may 
be  called  the  essential  functions  of  the  state. 

Luther  maintained  that  all  matters  concerning 
money,  property,  life,  and  honour  should  be  left 


1  Luther  conceded  to  the  state — though  from  religious 
motives — what  the  modern  state  claims  as  its  exclusive  right : 
legislation,  administration,  justice, — in  which  it  recognises 
no  concurrent  jurisdiction  of  the  church.  .  .  .  His  presen- 
tation of  the  state  was  only  a  little  more  than  the  narrow 
realm  of  administration  of  justice.  .  .  .  His  state  is  not  very 
much  more  than  an  indispensable  institution  for  discipline 
(training,  education)  and  peace.  Bluntschli:  Geschichte  der 
neueren  Statswissenschaft,  Allgemeines  Statsrecht  und  Politik, 
pp.  60,  61. 


The  Functions  of  the  State        191 

to  the  temporal  authorities,1  and  that  every 
court  is  under  obligations  to  judge  in  accordance 
with  the  laws  of  the  land.2  In  writing  about  the 
uprisings  of  the  peasants  and  their  various  de- 
mands, he  declared  that  he  referred  to  the  jurists 
(Recktverstdndigen)  the  questions  concerning  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  the  citizen  in  the  matter 
of  wild  game,  birds,  fish,  and  wood,  and  as  to 
forests,  service,  rent,  taxes,  etc.  It  did  not  become 
him,  he  said,  as  a  preacher,  to  decide  and  judge 
in  these  matters.  He  considered  it  his  duty  to 
instruct  and  teach  the  conscience  the  things  that 
concern  divine  and  Christian  subjects.  Further- 
more, there  are  books  enough  on  imperial  laws.3 
The  state  possesses  other  functions  of  a  par- 
ticular nature,  that  may  be  termed  secondary — 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  some  of  them  are 
of  great  importance — because  they  are  not  essen- 
tial elements  of  every  state  or  every  government. 
They  are  variously  termed  non-essential,  minis- 
trant,  or  general  welfare  functions,  and  cover 
industrial,  economic,  educational,  and  moral  in- 
terests. They  are  lines  of  endeavour  pursued 

1  An  den  christlichen  Adel  deutscher  Nation  von  des  christ- 
lichen  Standes  Besserung  (1520).     Weimar  ed.,  6  Band,  381 
et  seq. 

2  Bedenken  Luther s  (without  date).     Walch  ed.,  x.,  356. 

3  fermahnung  zum  Frieden  auf  die  zwolf  Artikel  der  Bauer- 
schaft  in  Schwaben  (1525).     Weimar  ed.,  18  Band,  279  et  seq. 


192  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

by  various  peoples  and  governments,  but  not  in 
any  case  by  all.  Conditions  and  needs  change 
with  different  countries  and  different  ages.  One 
period  and  one  people  need  one  appeal.  Another 
period  and  another  people  need  quite  a  different 
one.1  Luther's  age  called  forth  from  him  a 
ringing  appeal  for  action  by  the  civil  authorities 
in  connection  with  particular  functions  of  the 
state,  and  those  purposes  are  worthy  of  note. 

EDUCATION 

Germany  had  her  monastic  schools,  in  which 
the  training  and  education,  given  under  the 
exclusive  direction  of  the  church,  was  largely 
of  an  ecclesiastical  nature.  The  language  of  the 
church,  Latin,  was  used  to  the  almost  total  neg- 
lect of  the  language  of  the  land.  The  church  also 
established,  during  the  Middle  Ages,  cathedral 
and  parochial  schools,  but  these  were  conducted 
largely  with  a  view  to  preparing  men  for  the 
priesthood,  in  the  former,  and  for  church  member- 
ship, in  the  latter  schools.  The  parochial  school 
was  the  successor,  in  a  way,  of  the  catechetical 

»  "The  determination  of  just  what  powers  shall  be  assumed 
by  the  state,  is  solely  one  of  expediency,  and  as  such  lies  within 
the  field  of  politics,  or  the  art  of  government,  and  not  within 
the  domain  of  political  theory."  Willoughby:  An  Exam- 
ination of  the  Nature  of  the  State,  p.  338. 


The  Functions  of  the  State        193 

school  of  the  early  church.  In  it,  reading  and 
writing  did  not  usually  form  a  part  of  the  course 
of  study.1 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  Middle  Ages,  the 
commercial  developments  and  needs,  the  influence 
of  the  Renaissance,  and  the  rise  of  a  feeling  of 
greater  independence  from  the  church,  led  to 
the  establishment  of  secular  schools,  especially 
among  the  knights  and  in  the  cities.  Many  of 
these,  too,  were  under  the  control  of  the  clergy. 
Except  among  the  higher  classes,  female  education 
was  sadly  neglected.  Professor  Painter,  in  review- 
ing Germany's  educational  facilities  up  to  the  be- 
ginning of  the  sixteenth  century,  tersely  expresses 
the  'common  people's  need  of  educational  oppor- 
tunity in  these  words:  "A  notable  and  lamentable 
fact  in  the  educational  arrangements  of  the 
Middle  Ages  was  the  neglect  of  the  common 
people.  No  general  effort  was  made  to  reach 
and  elevate  them  by  education.  The  ecclesiastical 
schools  were  designed  chiefly  for  candidates  for 
the  priesthood;  the  parochial  schools  fitted  the 
young  for  church  membership;  the  burgher  schools 
were  intended  for  the  commercial  and  artisan 
classes  of  the  cities;  knightly  education  gave  a 
training  for  chivalry.  Thus  the  labouring  classes 
were  left  to  toil  on  in  ignorance  and  want;  they 

1  Painter:  Luther  on  Education,  p.  75  et  seq. 
13 


194  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

remained  in  a  dependent  and  servile  condition, 
their  lives  unillumined  by  intellectual  pleasures. 
If  here  and  there,  as  claimed  by  Roman  Cath- 
olic writers,  popular  schools  were  established, 
they  were  too  few  in  number  and  too  weak  in 
influence  to  deserve  more  than  passing  mention. 
Popular  education  was  the  outgrowth  of  the 
Reformation."1 

There  were  renowned  universities  largely  at- 
tended. The  first  German  university  was  founded 
by  the  Emperor  Charles  IV  at  Prague  in  1348, 
in  order  that  his  ''faithful  subjects  who  continually 
hungered  for  the  fruits  of  science  might  find 
satisfaction  at  home  and  no  longer  be  compelled 
to  girdle  the  earth  in  the  search  for  knowledge, 
to  hunt  out  strange  peoples  and  to  beg  in  foreign 
lands."2  No  less  than  fifteen  others  had  been 
established  prior  to  the  time  with  which  we  are 
now  concerned. 

Two  great  names  associated  with  the  humanistic 
movement  shine  out  in  the  first  half  of  the  six- 
teenth century.  Reuchlin  gave  an  impetus  to  the 
study  of  Greek  and  Hebrew ;  and  Erasmus,  besides 
developing  a  sense  of  culture,  prepared  the  way 
for  philological  and  historical  investigation.  "The 
new  culture  conquered  along  the  whole  line,  and 

1  Painter:  Luther  on  Education,  pp.  86,  87. 

2  Russell:  German  Higher  Schools,  p.  14. 


The  Functions  of  the  State        195 

by  1520  had  forced  its  way  into  all  the  larger 
universities. " 1  "  The  mediaeval  church  considered 
the  whole  wide  field  of  secular  activities  as  es- 
sentially evil.  Nature,  with  all  her  riches  and 
wonders,  was  opposed  to  God.  The  arts,  if  not 
subservient  to  the  church,  were  inspired  by  the 
devil;  human  intellect,  when  not  in  slavish  sub- 
mission to  the  dogma,  was  dangerous."2 

As  a  liberator  of  the  human  mind,  Luther  was 
a  staunch  advocate  of  JDorjular  education.  He 
urged  that  every  child  iJiould  be  given  an  ele- 
mentary education,  and  that  apt  scholars  should 
be  given  advanced  instruction.  He  based  his 
argument  on  training  men  and  women  not  alone 
for  the  service  of  the  church,  but  for  the  service 
of  the  state  as  well,  that  the  government  might 
have  trained,  capable,  and  efficient  servants  at 
command.  He  took  a  hand  personally  in  the 
establishment  of  town  and  village  schools.  The 
curriculum  of  the  existing  schools  should  be 
altered  and  corrected,  and  there  should  be  com- 
pulsory education  for  all  the  youth.  Every 
village,  every  town,  every  country  district,  should 
have  its  public  school,  and  it  should  be  established 
and  directed  by  the  civil  authorities.  He  urged 

1  Paulsen:  The  German  Universities;  their  Character  and 
Historical  Development,  p.  40. 

3  Nuelsen:  Luther  the  Leader,  p.  210. 


196  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

a  practical  education  that  would  fit  the  pupils  for 
life's  duties,  rather  than  a  mere  study  of  the 
schoolmen  and  the  dead  theories  and  philosophies 
of  the  past.  Public  libraries,  manual  training, 
instruction  in  music,  illustrated  teaching  for  the 
primary  grades,  and  the  cementing  of  the  various 
schools  from  the  beginners'  to  the  university 
into  one  great  system  are  included  in  Luther's 
plans  for  the  training  of  the  younger  generations. 
In  his  Appeal  to  the  German  Nobility,1  he  urges 
the  reformation  of  the  Tjerman  universities,  in 
which  he  alleges  a  free  life  was  led,  but  little  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  and  Christian  faith  was 
taught  and  the  blind  heathen  master  Aristotle 
reigned  more  than  Christ.  He  recommends  fewer 
books,  but  that  these  should  be  the  best.  It  is  not 
many  books  that  makes  learned,  but  it  is  a  good 
thing  read  often,  however  short  it  may  be,  that 
makes  learned  in  the  Scriptures  and  pious  withal. 
He  urges  Biblical  instruction  in  all  the  schools 
and  careful  oversight  of  the  books  used.  He 
earnestly  wishes  that  each  town  might  have 
also  a  girls'  school. 

1  An  den  christlichen  Adel  deutscher  Nation  von  des  christ- 
lichen  Standes  Besserung  (1520).  Weimar  ed.,  6  Band,  381 
et  seq.  The  importance  of  education  is  one  of  the  leading 
topics  in  this  stirring  appeal.  Fisher:  The  Reformation,  p. 
86. 


The  Functions  of  the  State        197 

In  a  tract  written  a  few  years  later,1  he  calls 
attention  to  the  deterioration  of  the  German 
schools,  and  says  the  universities  are  becoming 
weak  and  the  monasteries  are  declining.  He 
states  various  reasons  why  public  schools  should 
be  established  everywhere.  The  civil  authorities 
of  the  towns  must  attend  to  this  matter,  because 
parents  neglect  this  duty  from  various  causes. 
Some  would  not  do  it  if  they  could.  The  great 
majority  of  parents  are  unqualified  for  it.  Fur- 
thermore, parents  have  no  time  for  it.  Very 
few  parents  could  afford  the  expense  of  private 
instruction. 

Therefore,  he  says,  it  will  be  the  duty  of  the 
mayors  and  council  to  exercise  the  greatest  care 
over  the  young.  For  since  the  happiness,  honour, 
and  life  of  the  city  are  committed  to  their  hands, 
they  would  be  held  recreant  before  God  and  the 
world,  if  they  did  not,  day  and  night,  with  all 
their  power,  seek  its  welfare  and  improvement. 
Now  the  welfare  of  a  city  does  not  consist  alone 
in  great  treasures,  firm  walls,  beautiful  houses, 
and  munitions  of  war;  indeed,  where  all  these 
are  found,  and  reckless  fools  come  into  power, 
the  city  sustains  the  greater  injury.  But  the 

*  An  die  Ratherren  alter  Stddte  deutsches  Lands,  dass  sie 
christliche  Schulen  aufrichten  und  halten  sollen  (1524).  Weimar 
ed.,  15  Band,  9  et  seq. 


198  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

highest  welfare,  safety  and  power  of  a  city  consist 
in  able,  learned,  wise,  upright,  cultivated  citizens 
who  can  secure,  preserve,  and  utilise  every  treasure 
and  advantage.  He  urges  a  general  knowledge 
of  God's  word,  and  declares  that  we  will  not  pre- 
serve the  Gospel  without  the  languages;  for  the 
languages  are  the  scabbard  in  which  the  word  of 
God  is  sheathed.  They  are  the  casket  in  which 
this  jewel  is  enshrined;  the  cask  in  which  this  wine 
is  kept;  the  chamber  in  which  this  food  is  stored; 
and,  to  borrow  a  figure  from  the  Gospel  itself, 
they  are  the  baskets  in  which  this  bread,  and  fish, 
and  fragments  are  preserved.  He  then  goes  on 
to  state: 

So  much  for  the  utility  and  necessity  of  the  lan- 
guages, and  of  Christian  schools  for  our  spiritual 
interests  and  the  salvation  of  the  soul.  Let  us  now 
consider  the  body  and  inquire :  Though  there  were  no 
soul,  nor  heaven,  nor  hell,  but  only  the  civil  govern- 
ment, would  not  this  require  good  schools  and  learned 
men  more  than  do  our  spiritual  interests.  ...  It  is 
not  necessary  to  say  here  that  civil  government  is  a 
divine  institution.  The  question  is,  how  are  we  to 
get  able  and  skilful  rulers.  .  .  . 

Even  if  there  were  no  soul  and  men  did  not  need 
schools  and  the  languages  for  the  sake  of  Christianity 
and  the  Scriptures,  still,  for  the  establishment  of  the 
best  schools  everywhere,  both  for  boys  and  girls, 


The  Functions  of  the  State       199 

this  consideration  is  of  itself  sufficient,  namely,  that 
society  for  the  maintenance  of  civil  order  and  the 
proper  regulation  of  the  household,  needs  accom- 
plished and  well-trained  men  and  women.  Now, 
such  men  are  to  come  from  boys,  and  such  women 
from  girls.  Hence  it  is  necessary  that  boys  and 
girls  be  properly  taught  and  brought  up.  .  .  . 

As  for  myself,  if  I  had  children1  and  were  able,  I 
would  have  them  learn  not  only  the  languages  and 
history,  but  also  singing,  instrumental  music,  and 
the  whole  course  of  mathematics.  There  is  an  urgent 
necessity  [he  maintained],  not  only  for  the  sake  of  the 
young,  but  also  for  the  maintenance  of  Christianity 
and  of  civil  government,  that  this  matter  be  imme- 
diately and  earnestly  taken  in  hand. 

Several  years  later,  in  a  letter  to  the  Elector 
John,2  Luther  wrote: 

Where  there  are  towns  and  villages  which  have  the 
ability,  your  Electoral  Grace  has  the  power  to  com- 
pel them  to  maintain  schools,  pulpits,  and  parishes. 
If  they  will  not  do  it  from  a  consideration  for  their 
salvation,  then  your  Electoral  Grace,  as  highest  guard- 
ian of  the  youth  and  of  all  others  needing  supervision, 
is  to  compel  them  to  do  so,  just  as  they  are  compelled 
to  render  contributions  and  services  toward  bridges, 
paths,  and  roads,  or  other  matters  pertaining  to  the 
public  interest.  Those  who  enjoy  the  privileges  of  a 

1  This  tract  was  written  the  year  before  Luther  married. 

2  Written  in  1526.     Painter:  Luther  on  Education,  p.   136 
et  seq. 


200  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

country  are  to  contribute  towards  everything  that 
the  common  interests  of  the  country  require.  Now 
there  is  nothing  more  necessary  than  to  educate  men 
who  are  to  succeed  us  and  govern. 

In  a  sermon  on  this  subject,  preached  and 
published  in  I530,1  he  maintains  that  the  civil 
authorities  are  under  obligation  to  compel  the 
people  to  send  their  children  to  school,  especially 
such  as  are  promising;  "for  rulers  are  certainly 
bound  to  maintain  the  spiritual  and  secular  offices 
and  callings,  so  that  there  may  always  be  preach- 
ers, jurists,  pastors,  scribes,  physicians,  school- 
masters, and  the  like;  for  this  cannot  be  dispensed 
with.  If  the  government  can  compel  such  citizens 
as  are  fit  for  military  service  to  bear  spear  and 
rifle,  to  mount  ramparts  and  perform  other 
military  duty  in  time  of  war,  how  much  more 
has  it  a  right  to  compel  the  people  to  send  their 
children  to  school." 

Luther  earnestly  appealed  for  the  instruction  of 
every  child  in  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
Christian  religion,  as  well  as  in  the  common 
branches  of  secular  instruction.  Prior  to  his  day 
there  had  been  an  education  of  certain  classes.  He 
appealed  for  the  education  of  the  masses.  Every 
state  is  constantly  dealing  in  its  laws  and  adminis- 

1  Predigt,  dass  man  die  Kinder  zur  Schule  halten  soil  (July, 
1530).  Walch  ed.,  x.,  416  et  seq. 


The  Functions  of  the  State       201 

tration,  with  moral  questions.  Man  cannot  be 
entirely  dissociated  from  morals,  because  all  his 
relations  with  other  men  involve  moral  principles. 

Luther  declared  he  referred  the  inquiry  if  a 
man  had  a  right  to  resist  the  emperor  to  the  jurists, 
because  it  was  not  his  province  as  a  theologian 
to  decide  such  a  question.  It  is  the  duty  of  the 
theologian,  he  said,  to  teach  the  Gospel  and  faith 
in  Christ.  He  should  also  exhort  every  one  in 
general  to  perform  his  duty  faithfully  and  indus- 
triously. The  theologian  teaches  general  prin- 
ciples concerning  worldly  business,  e.g.,  "Thou 
shalt  not  steal" ;  but  the  jurists  define  what  consti- 
tutes theft.  "And  so  in  this  matter  concerning 
the  emperor  I,  as  a  theologian,  teach  that  men 
should  obey  the  prescribed  laws;  but  what  the 
law  is  and  what  kind  of  a  law  it  is,  I  do  not  know 
nor  do  I  want  to  know ;  for  that  does  not  belong 
to  my  office,  and  it  is  not  my  province."1 

We  need  to-day,  as  the  world  has  ever  needed, 
with  the  purely  intellectual  and  scientific  training, 
a  deep-seated  religious  and  moral  training  that 
will  develop  men  of  faith  as  well  as  of  fortune, 
men  of  character  and  of  honour,  as  well  as  men 
of  secular  learning.  The  state  owes  it  to  its  own 
maintenance  and  stability  to  cultivate  morals 

1  Luther s  Antwort  von  der  Gegenwehr  (without  date).  Walch 
ed.,  x.,  558,  559. 


202  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

and  manhood  in  its  youth  of  to-day,  who  will 
be  its  strength  to-morrow.  It  is  of  little  use  for 
the  state  to  punish  crime  that  has  been  committed, 
if  it  neglect  or  refuse  to  teach  and  train  its  youth 
as  to  what  is  right  and  what  is  wrong  in  the 
relations  between  man  and  man.  Every  child 
in  the  country  needs  to  be  taught,  by  and  under 
the  authority  of  the  state,  that  it  is  wrong  to  kill, 
to  steal,  to  lie.  These  are  moral  questions,  as 
are  hundreds  of  other  particular  acts  that  are 
made  punishable,  under  certain  conditions,  by  the 
laws  of  the  various  civilised  countries.  The  state 
takes  cognisance  of  them  and  punishes  them; 
and  it  is  purest  folly  to  maintain  that  the  state 
should  not  teach  these  matters  in  its  public  schools. 
The  state  owes  it  to  its  citizens  as  individuals,  and 
it  owes  it  to  its  own  existence  and  interests.  A 
great  historian  has  expressed  the  importance  of 
this  duty  of  the  state  in  these  words: 

As  indeed  there  is  nothing  of  real  importance  in 
the  moral  and  intellectual  business  of  human  life, 
the  source  of  which  does  not  lie  in  a  profound  and 
more  or  less  conscious  relation  of  man  and  his  con- 
cerns to  God  and  divine  things,  it  is  impossible  to 
conceive  a  nation  worthy  of  the  name,  or  entitled  to 
be  called,  in  any  sense,  great,  whose  political  existence 
is  not  constantly  elevated  and  guided  by  religious 
ideas.  To  cultivate,  purify,  and  exalt  these — to  give 


The  Functions  of  the  State       203 

them  an  expression  intelligible  to  all  and  profitable 
to  all, — to  embody  them  in  outward  forms  and  public 
acts,  is  its  necessary  as  well  as  its  noblest  task.1 

A  writer  of  our  own  day  urges  such  instruction 
because  it  is  for  the  best  interests  of  the  people. 
He  says: 

We  unhesitatingly  advocate  the  doctrine  that 
religious  instruction,  as  well  as  secular,  should  be 
given  in  the  schools  of  the  state.  But  solely  as  a 
means  to  an  end — not  as  an  end  in  itself.  .  .  . 
The  state,  therefore,  that  is  true  to  its  mission — the 
highest  well-being  of  all  the  people — will  use  all 
the  means  in  its  power  to  have  its  members  receive 
the  most  competent  instruction  available  on  their 
relation  to  God  as  on  their  relation  to  one  another. 
.  .  .  No  government  is  justified  in  ignoring  the 
religious  convictions  of  its  subjects.  2 

"  Luther's  influence  on  the  cause  of  popular 

1  Ranke:  History  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany,  i.,  i.     The 
president   of   one   of  our  prominent  American  colleges  has 
recently   given    utterance    to    the    same  thought  in   other 
words:    "Religion    is   essential   to   the  candidate   for   good 
citizenship,  and   the  aim  of  the  college  is   to  train  citizens 
for  citizenship.     Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all 
thy  mind  and  heart  and  soul  and  strength,  and  thy  neighbour 
as  thyself,  and  without  love  of  this  kind,  intellectual  endow- 
ment, the  trained  mind,  and  the  most  comprehensive  know- 
ledge, are  nothing  or  worse  than  nothing.  "     Henry  A.  Gar- 
field,  Inaugural  Address  as  President  of  Williams  College,  1908. 

2  Hoffman:  The  Sphere  of  the  State,  pp.  46,  47. 


204  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

education  was  immediate  and  profound."1  A 
problem  such  as  is  the  one  of  education  can  be 
handled  only  by  the  state,2  if  it  is  to  reach  all  its 
citizens  alike.  If  morality  is  a  factor  in  good 
citizenship,  and  it  is,  then  it  is  the  right  and  the 
duty  of  the  state  to  teach  morals,  as  well  as 
secular  studies  in  its  public  schools.  Luther, 
in  spite  of  all  attempts  at  denial,  is  the  founder 
of  the  modern  public  school  and  compulsory 
universal  education.3 


1  Scherer:  Four  Princes,  or  the  Growth  of  a  Kingdom,  p.  243. 

2  Kelly:    Evolution  and  Effort,  p.  279.      To  the  mind  of 
Wilhelm  von    Humboldt,   national  education   seems  to   lie 
"wholly   beyond   the    limits  within  which  political  agency 
should  properly  be  confined."     Sphere  and  Duties  of  Govern- 
ment, p.  71. 

But  the  more  modern  opinion  attaches  to  education  the 
greatest  importance,  and  in  a  large  part  of  Christendom  this 
opinion  is  carried  out  in  a  system  of  primary  instruction, 
and  special  schools,  and  in  what  is  called  the  university. 
Woolsey:  Political  Science,  or  the  State,  i.,  227. 

3  Nuelsen:   Luther  the  Leader,  p.  212.      "It  is  to  Luther 
that  Germany  owes  its  splendid  educational  system  in  its 
roots  and  in  its  conception.     For  he  was  the  first  to  plead 
for  a    universal  education — for  an   education  of  the  whole 
people,  without  regard  to  class  or  special  life-work. "     Lind- 
say: Luther  and  the  German  Reformation,  p.  238. 

Luther's  pamphlets  on  education,  according  to  the  histo- 
rian Ranke,  "have  done  as  much  for  the  development  of  secu- 
lar instruction  as  his  Address  to  the  German  Nobility  has  done 
for  the  secular  state  in  general. " 

"In   education,    as   in   religion,    Luther   showed    himself 


The  Functions  of  the  State       205 

FINANCE  AND  TRADE 

Thomas  Aquinas  maintained  that  the  state  has 
an  economic  as  well  as  a  moral  end;  and  Luther 
recognises  a  number  of  duties  the  state  owes  its 
citizens  in  respect  to  financial  and  commercial 
affairs.  Wealth  itself,  honestly  acquired  and 
honourably  employed,  is  a  great  good;  but  the 
state  should  prohibit  its  improper  use.  Jrle 
declared : 

Riches  are  not  bad  in  themselves,  nor  is  poverty 
anything  good  in  itself.  Everything  depends  upon 
the  man  who  uses  it.  God  does  not  require  of  us  to 
be  without  money,  as  some  fools  among  the  philo- 
sophers and  some  crazy  saints  among  the  Christians 
have  taught.  He  permits  some  to  become  rich,  but 
he  does  not  want  them  to  set  their  hearts  and  their 
love  on  their  money.  .  .  .  The  fatal  mistake  is  made 
When  people  consider  themselves  the  owners,  while 
they  are  fout  stewards.  .  .  .  You  may  earn  as  much 
as  you  can  in  an  honest  way  and  in  the  fear  of  God, 
not  in  order  to  gratify  your  avarice,  but  in  order 
to  use  it  for  others.1 

Extortion,  gambling,  and  usury,  according  to 
Luther,  should  be  prohibited.  Monopolies  in 


great,  a  seer  in  advance  of  his  age,  the  founder  of  a  new  and 
higher   culture."     He   deserves    "to   be   recognised   as   the 
greatest,  not  only  of  religious,  but  of  educational  reformers. " 
Painter:  Luther  on  Education,  pp.  146,  168. 
1  Nuelsen:  Luther  the  Leader,  p.  237. 


206  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

restraint  of  trade — corporate  and  individual  alike 
— must  be  restrained.  Domestic  industries  should 
be  cultivated  and  encouraged.  The  state  may 
fix  and  regulate  prices. 

A  writer  of  our  own  day  asserts  that  the  regula- 
tion of  corporations  is  one  side  of  the  modern 
regulation  of  the  industrial  system,  and  is  a 
function  added  to  the  antique  list  of  governmental 
tasks;1  but  Luther's  Appeal  to  the  German  Nobility 
of  1520  calls  for  such  regulation.  He  maintained 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  state  to  check  and  control 
combinations  operating  injuriously  to  the  people. 
If  it  is  the  province  of  government,  as  we  are 
told  it  is,  to  prevent  as  well  as  to  correct  evils  in 
society,  then  whatever  is  a  menace  to  the  rights 
of  others,  being  a  practical  expression  of  covet- 
ousness,  is  to  be  dealt  with  effectually,  even 
though  as  yet  it  has  not  actually  invaded  the 
rights  of  others,  and  the  state  can  thus  legislate 
with  reference  to  monopolies  and  combinations 
and  such  things  even  before  they  begin  practically 
to  control  the  market  and  injure  others  by  their 
methods  of  doing  business. 

In  his  Appeal  to  the  German  Nobility,2  Luther 

»  Wilson:  The  State,  p.  626. 

2  An  den  christlichen  Adel  deutscher  Nation  von  des  christ- 
lichen  Standes  Besserung  (1520).  Weimar  ed.,  6  Band,  381  et 
seq.  Wace  and  Buchheim:  Luther's  Primary  Works,  p.  161  et 
seq. 


rm 

UNIVERSITY 


The  Functions  of  the  State       207 

declared  that  without  doubt  the  greatest  mis- 
fortune of  the  Germans  is  buying  on  usury.1  But 
for  this  many  a  man  would  have  to  leave  unbought 
his  silk,  velvet,  cloth  of  gold,  spices,  and  other 
luxuries.  The  system,  he  says,  has  not  been  in 
force  for  more  than  one  hundred  years,  and  has 
already  brought  poverty,  misery,  and  destruction 
on  almost  all  princes,  foundations,  cities,  nobles, 
and  heirs.  If  it  continue  for  another  hundred 
years  Germany  will  be  left  without  a  farthing,  and 
we  shall  be  reduced  to  eating  one  another.  The 
Devil,  he  declares,  invented  this  system,  and  the 
Pope  has  done  an  injury  to  the  whole  world  by 
sanctioning  it.  Luther  therefore  urges  that  each 
man  consider  the  destruction  of  himself  and  his 
family,  which  is  no  longer  merely  at  the  door,  but 
has  entered  the  house.  And  let  the  emperors, 
princes,  lords,  and  corporations  see  to  the  con- 
demnation and  prohibition  of  this  kind  of  trade, 

1  Receiving  interest  for  the  use  of  money  was  regarded  as  a 
crime  by  nearly  all  the  civilised  world  up  to  the  middle  of 
the  sixteenth  century.  This  view  was  due  mainly  to  an 
unauthorised  interpretation  of  a  passage  in  the  Mosaic  law  on 
the  subject.  Aristotle  was  likewise  quoted  as  against  the 
principle.  But  while  money  does  not  produce  money,  yet 
it  may  be  exchanged  for  wheat,  corn,  or  other  things  that  re- 
produce themselves  and  increase  wealth.  The  first  legis- 
lation enacted  allowing  the  collection  of  interest  for  the  use 
of  money  and  fixing  a  maximum  rate  (10%)  was  that  of 
England  in  1546.  Hoffman:  The  Sphere  of  the  State,  p.  149. 


208  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

without  considering  the  opposition  of  the  Pope 
and  all  his  justice  and  injustice,  nor  whether 
livings  or  endowments  depend  upon  it.  Better 
a  single  fief  in  a  city  based  on  a  freehold  estate 
or  honest  interest  than  a  hundred  based  on  usury. 
A  single  endowment  on  usury  is  worse  and  more 
grievous  than  twenty  based  on  freehold  estate. 
"Doubtless,"  he  continues  further,  "we  should 
also  find  some  bridle  for  the  Fuggers  and  similar 
companies.  Is  it  possible  that  in  a  single  man's 
lifetime  such  great  wealth  should  be  collected 
together,  if  all  were  done  rightly  and  according  to 
God's  will?  I  am  not  skilled  in  accounts,  but  I 
do  not  understand  how  it  is  possible  for  one 
hundred  guilders  to  gain  twenty  in  a  year,  or  how 
one  guilder  can  gain  another,  and  that  not  out 
of  the  soil,  or  by  cattle,  seeing  that  possessions 
depend  not  on  the  wit  of  men,  but  on  the  blessing 
of  God.  I  commend  this  to  those  that  are  skilled 
in  worldly  affairs.  I,  as  a  theologian,  blame 
nothing  but  the  evil  appearance,  of  which  St. 
Paul  says:  'Abstain  from  all  appearance  of  evil.'1 
All  I  know  is  that  it  were  much  more  godly  to 
encourage  agriculture  and  lessen  commerce;  and 
that  they  do  the  best  who,  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  till  the  ground  to  get  their  living,  as 
we  are  all  commanded  in  Adam:  'Cursed  is  the 

1  i  Thessalonians  v.,  22. 


The  Functions  of  the  State       209 

ground  for  thy  sake.  .  .  .  Thorns  also  and  thistles 
shall  it  bring  forth  to  thee.  ...  In  the  sweat 
of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread.'1  There  is  still 
much  ground  that  is  not  ploughed  or  tilled." 

"I  do  not  see,"  he  says  again  in  the  same  docu- 
ment, ''many  good  manners  that  have  ever  come 
into  the  land  through  commerce,  and  therefore 
God  let  the  people  of  Israel  dwell  far  from  the 
sea  and  not  carry  on  much  trade." 

The  discoveries  and  conquests  of  new  worlds 
gave  a  marked  impetus  to  commerce  in  the  early 
part  of  the  sixteenth  century.  A  more  luxurious 
mode  of  living  was  practised.  Companies  were 
formed  which  bought  up  the  necessaries  of  life 
and  raised  the  prices.  The  importance  of  agricul- 
ture was  yielding  to  commerce  the  opportunity 
for  greater  wealth  and  larger  returns.  Luther's 
pamphlet  on  Trade  and  Usury  has  been  called  by 
Professor  Schmoller  "the  most  interesting  treatise 
on  social  and  economic  questions  written  during 
the  whole  period  of  the  Reformation."2  Interest 
should  be  collected,  in  Luther's  view,  only  where 
the  debtor  has  won  more  than  a  fair  return  for 
his  trouble.  The  lender  should  assume  the  risk 
and  bear  the  loss  of  his  creditor's  reverses. 
Luther  denounces  extortionate  prices  for  the 

1  Genesis  in.,  17-19. 

a  Quoted  by  Nuelsen:  Luther  the  Leader,  p.  236. 


14 


210  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

necessaries  of  life,  charged  solely  to  make  money. 
Merchants  are  entitled,  he  holds,  to  a  fair  com- 
pensation for  their  venture  and  their  work,  but 
they  have  no  moral  right  to  charge  extortionate 
prices  merely  to  acquire  wealth.  A  court  might 
be  instituted  with  authority  to  regulate  and  fix 
prices, — an  arrangement  that  would  be  fair  to 
producer  and  consumer  alike. 

Luther  criticised  the  foreign  commerce  of  his 
day  because  it  carried  so  much  of  Germany's  gold 
out  of  the  country,  and  cultivated  a  spirit  of 
extravagance  and  luxury.  He  advocated  the  en- 
couragement of  domestic  industries  and  domes- 
tic products.  "Germany  can  produce  everything 
that  we  need,"  he  declared:  "why  send  money 
to  foreign  nations  for  the  purpose  of  purchasing 
goods  which  are  not  necessary  at  all?  God  has 
cursed  us  Germans,  so  that  we  throw  our  money, 
our  silver,  and  our  gold  into  the  hands  of 
foreign  nations,  to  make  them  rich,  and  remain 
beggars  ourselves.  England  would  have  less  gold 
if  we  would  not  buy  clothes  of  her.  The  King  of 
Portugal  would  have  less  money  if  we  left  him  his 
spices.  Just  figure  up  how  much  money  is  sent 
to  foreign  countries  without  any  just  cause,  and 
you  will  be  surprised  that  there  is  a  penny  left 
in  our  German  lands."  1 

1  Nuelsen:  Luther  the  Leader \  p.  236. 


The  Functions  of  the  State        211 

As  the  penalty  for  extortion,  whether  in  the 
sale  of  goods  or  property,  or  for  the  loan  of  money, 
Luther  proposed  confiscation  of  property  and 
even  banishment.  U 

As  to  whether  gamblers  are  thieves  and  whether 
the  stakes  won  should  be  given  back,  it  is  clear, 
says  Luther,1  that  those  who  gamble  sin  through 
covetousness  and  avarice, — at  least  those  who 
gamble  for  the  sake  of  the  stake — and  therefore 
in  God's  sight  are  thieves  and  covet  the  things 
of  others.  For  no  one  gambles  with  another 
because  he  desires  to  give  that  which  is  his  own 
to  the  other, — for  he  could  do  that  without  gam- 
bling, nor  does  he  do  so  that  he  may  thereby  lose 
his  own.  Neither  does  he  do  so  in  the  other's 
behalf,  as  if  it  were  his  own.  Therefore  gambling 
is  always  against  love  and  is  base  covetousness, 
for  the  gambler  seeks  something  for  himself  at 
another's  loss,  or  at  least  seeks  that  which  is  the 
other's  not  as  his  own.  But  both  players  play 
their  stakes  with  knowledge  and  consent,  so  that 
the  loser  loses  knowingly  and  wilfully.  The  best 
punishment  would  be,  if  it  could  be  brought  about, 
that  both  should  lose,  or  at  least  that  the  state  treas- 
ury should  secure  the  winnings  of  both  because 

i  Die  zehn  Gebote  dem  Volk  zu  Wittenberg  gepredigt  (1516- 
1517).  Das  siebente  Gebot:  DM  sollst  nicht  stehlen.  Walch 
ed.,  iii.,  1312  et  seq. 


212  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

both,  by  their  gambling,  violate  the  command 
of  the  prince  and  the  spiritual  law  of  the  church. 

Luther  condemned,  as  did  his  age  in  general, 
the  investment  made  in  the  spirit  of  avarice,  to 
increase  worldly  possessions  and  indulge  in  an 
idle  life.  In  the  law  of  Moses,  Luther  sets  forth  in 
the  sermon  just  cited,  labour  and  sorrow  are  laid 
upon  all  men:  "In  the  sweat  of  thy  face  shalt 
thou  eat  bread"1;  and  Job  declares:  ''Man  is  born 
unto  trouble  [labour],  as  the  sparks  fly  upward.*'2 
There  are  cases,  Luther  concedes,  in  which  interest 
may  be  properly  taken  on  loans,  such  as  in  the 
cases  of  (i)  the  aged,  children,  and  the  sick,  for 
they  have  trouble  enough;  (2)  those  who  are 
engaged  in  vocations  from  which  they  receive  no 
return,  such  as  the  clerical  orders,  priests,  and 
prelates,  who  are  engaged  in  studies  and  with  the 
word  of  God,  and  those,  too,  who  serve  the  com- 
munity and  the  needs  of  others,  as  princes,  coun- 
sellors, and  city  and  town  authorities.  Otherwise, 
if  God  gave  to  each  person  in  accordance  with 
his  work,  what  would  the  idlers  receive  who 
misuse  their  wealth  only  for  gain,  gain  only  for 
idleness,  idleness  only  for  a  luxurious  life,  and 
luxurious  life  only  for  sin?  The  cultivation  of 
avarice  and  covetousness  is  the  danger  to  which 
Luther  here  directs  attention. 

1  Genesis  iii.,  19.  2  Job  v.,  7. 


The  Functions  of  the  State       213 

In  a  sermon  on  the  subject  of  Trade  and  Com- 
merce* Luther  goes  into  a  lengthy  argument  as 
to  the  Christian  du^y  of  men  to  treat  others  justly 
and  fairly,  citing  tnte  golden  rule  as  the  highest 
standard  of  business?  conduct.  No  fairer  or 
briefer  guide  can  be  given  for  all  business  affairs 
than  that  every  man  in  dealing  with  others  should 
set  before  himself  the  command:  Whatsoever  you 
would  that  another  should  do  to  you,  likewise  do 
to  him;  and:  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as 
thyself.  Viewing  the  principle  of  usury  as  un- 
christian, ungodly,  and  unnatural,  Luther  severely 
condemns  those  who  demand  and  receive  \  extor- 
tionate rates  of  interest  for  loans.  He  declares, 
however,  that  it  is  not  his  province  to  say  where 
four,  or  five,  or  six  per  cent,  should  be  charged. 
He  leaves  that  to  the  judgment  of  the  law  to 
determine  where  there  are  good  grounds  for  the 
higher  rate.  The  authorities  should  see  that 


1  Von  Betrug  und  Uebervortheilung  im  Handel  und  Wandel, 
insonderheit  vom  Zins  und  Wucher:  Grosser  Sermon  vom 
Wucher  (1519-1520).  Weimar  ed.,  6  Band,  33  et  seq.  Also 
see,  for  Luther's  further  discussion  of  these  subjects  of 
Wucher,  Zinskauf,  etc.,  Bedenken  an  den  Kanzler  Gregor 
Bruck  vom  Zinskauf  (Oct.  18,  1523),  Walch  ed.,  x.,  912  et 
seq. ;  Herzog  Johann  Friedrichs  zu  Sachsen  Schreiben  an  D.  M. 
Luther  (1524),  and  Bedenken  D.  Martin  Luther s  (1524),  an 
answer  to  the  preceding  letter  of  inquiry.  Walch  ed.,  x., 
352  et  seq. 


214  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

excessive  and  oppressive  rates  are  not  taken. 
Referring  to  some  of  the  commercial  thieves  of 
his  day,  he  calls  them,  not  human  beings,  but 
wolves  and  wild  beasts,  who  do  not  believe  in 
a  God.  The  emperor,  kings,  princes,  and  lords 
should  watch  these  matters,  and  rescue  and  save 
their  lands  and  peoples  from  the  usurer's  gullet. 
The  Imperial  Diet  should  treat  this  as  one  of  the 
most  important  and  pressing  subjects  calling  for 
its  consideration. 

In  a  treatise  on  the  subject  of  Trade  and  Usury, 
published  a  few  years  later,1  Luther  condemns 
the  importation  from  Calcutta,  East  India,  and 
elsewhere,  of  expensive  silks,  gold- work,  and  spices, 
that  take  from  the  people  and  out  of  the  country 
its  gold,  yet  ministering  to  no  need,  but  only  to 
adornment.  "God  has  condemned  us  Germans 
to  throw  away  our  gold  and  silver  in  foreign  lands 
and  make  all  the  world  rich,  but  to  remain  beggars 
ourselves.'* 

Discussing  in  this  same  paper  the  evils  of  trade 
of  his  day,  he  says  "so  far  as  they  affect  the 
revenue,  we  leave  them  to  the  consideration  of  the 
princes  and  lords,  that  they  may  do  their  duty 
in  the  matter."  Merchants  have  a  common  rule 
that  is  their  motto  and  the  foundation  of  all 

»  Von  Kaufshandlung  und  Wucher  (1524).  Weimar  ed., 
15  Band,  279  et  seq. 


The  Functions  of  the  State       215 

finance:  "I  may  dispose  of  my  goods  at  as  high 
a  price  as  I  can."  They  look  upon  that  as  a 
right.  But  it  should  not  be  "I  may  dispose  of 
my  goods  at  as  high  a  price  as  I  can  or  will," 
but  "I  may  dispose  of  my  goods  at  as  high  a 
price  as  I  should,  or  as  is  right  and  fair."  The 
best  and  surest  way  of  regulating  this  matter, 
Luther  suggests,  would  be  for  the  civil  authorities 
to  appoint  and  entrust  fit  and  capable  persons 
to  inspect  all  goods  and  their  cost,  and  fix  their 
value.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Germans 
are  so  occupied  with  other  things,  drinking  and 
dancing,  as  not  to  tolerate  such  a  regulation  and 
institution,  and  it  is  not  therefore  to  be  expected, 
the  next  best  counsel  is  that  the  value  of  goods 
be  determined  by  the  price  given  and  taken  in  the 
public  market  or  by  the  practice  of  the  country. 
The  amount  of  profit  or  gain  to  which  a  man  is 
entitled  in  the  case  of  trade  and  work  cannot  be 
calculated  better  than  by  determining  the  time 
and  the  amount  of  the  labour  expended,  and,  as 
compared  with  a  common  day  labourer,  how  great 
the  labour  and  the  risk  involved;  for  difficult  and 
important  work  and  a  large  amount  of  time  are 
entitled  to  greater  and  more  reward. 

Luther  condemns  the  practice  among  merchants 
and  others  in  his  day  of  going  surety.  Buying 
on  credit  cultivates  the  spirit  of  avarice.  Some 


2i6  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

merchants  sell  on  time  rather  than  for  cash  so  as 
to  make  a  greater  profit.  Some  sell  their  goods 
at  a  higher  rate  than  the  current  market  price,  and 
run  up  the  prices  of  goods  for  no  other  reason  than 
that  they  know  there  is  no  further  supply  of  the 
same  in  the  country  and  people  must  have  them. 
All  such  are  public  robbers,  thieves,  and  usurers. 

Then  there  are  those  who  buy  up  the  entire 
supply  of  a  certain  article  or  ware  in  a  country 
or  a  city,  that  they  may  have  its  control  absolutely 
within  their  own  power,  and  then  are  able  to  set, 
increase,  and  quote  prices  as  high  as  they  wish 
or  can.  The  imperial  and  temporal  laws  prohibit 
it  and  term  it  monopoly.  It  should  not  be  per- 
mitted; and  princes  and  lords,  if  they  wish  to  do 
their  duty,  should  punish  and  stop  it.  For  such 
tradesmen  act  as  if  all  God's  creatures  and  things 
were  created  for  and  given  to  them  alone  and 
they  may  do  with  them  as  they  please.  Such 
monopolists  are  not  worthy  to  be  called  men,  or 
to  live  among  people.  The  civil  authorities  would 
do  right  here  if  they  would  confiscate  all  the 
property  of  such  monopolists  and  banish  them 
from  the  country. 

After  discussing  various  other  methods  of 
tradesmen,  middlemen,  and  speculators,  who  seek 
the  greatest  possible  profit  from  sales,  made  in 
fact  or  on  paper,  Luther  declares  that  such  finan- 


The  Functions  of  the  State       217 

ciers  are  called  cut- throats,  but  are  looked  upon 
as  shrewd  people.  He  denounces  agreements 
made  between  different  merchants  to  regulate  or 
control  prices  with  a  view  to  greater  profit;  the 
practice  of  selling  at  high  prices  and  buying  back 
again  from  the  same  parties  at  much  lower  prices 
under  misrepresentation;  increasing  the  weight  of 
certain  commodities  by  storing  them  in  damp 
buildings;  selling  in  dark  rooms,  where  the  pur- 
chaser can  be  readily  deceived;  placing  the  best 
at  top  and  bottom,  and  the  worst  inside;  so  that 
trade  deception  has  no  limit,  and  no  merchant  dare 
trust  another  farther  than  he  can  see  and  examine. 
It  is  the  duty  of  the  princes  to  punish  and  prohibit 
unfair  and  unjust  methods  of  trade. 

Luther  sees  in  the  commercial  companies  and 
associations  of  his  day  monopolistic  combinations 
that  drive  out  of  business  the  smaller  merchants 
and  tradesmen — as  pike  destroy  the  smaller  fish 
in  the  water — control  the  market,  and  charge 
extortionate  prices.  Kings  and  princes  should 
investigate  these  matters,  he  argues,  and  regulate 
them  in  accordance  with  strict  justice.  But 
while  they  have  those  thieves  hung  who  steal  a 
gulden,  or  half  a  gulden,  they  trade  and  do 
business  with  those  who  rob  from  the  whole 
world  and  steal  more  than  all  others.  With 
such  extortionate  and  unjust  practices  before 


218  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

his  mind,  Luther  declared  no  one  therefore  dare 
inquire  if  he  may  be  with  good  conscience  in 
such  combinations  or  associations.  There  is  no 
other  advice  than  keep  out.  If  the  associations 
remain,  justice  and  honesty  must  perish.  If 
justice  and  honesty  are  to  abide,  the  associations 
must  perish.1 

Towards  the  close  of  his  life,  Luther  addressed 
an  open  letter  to  the  parish  clergy  exhorting  them 
to  preach  against  usury.2  After  referring  to  the 
increasing  extent  and  evils  of  it,  he  says,  among 
other  things :  *  *  Concerning  lending  and  borrowing, 
where  a  person  loans  money  and  demands  or 
receives  therefor  more  or  better,  that  is  usury, 
condemned  in  all  justice.  Therefore  all  those 
who  take  five,  six,  or  more  on  the  hundred,  whether 
gold  or  grain,  or  other  commodities,  are  usurers. 
It  is  stolen  goods." 

But  he  makes  an  important  qualification.  He 
asserts  it  is  fair  and  according  to  reason  and 
natural  law  that  the  borrower  return  the  principal 
with  any  damage  or  loss  (Sckaden)  that  may  have 
been  incurred  by  the  lender  in  making  the  loan. 

1  "  Sollen  die  Gesellschaften  bleiben,  so  muss  Recht  und  Red- 
lichkeit   untergehen.     Soil  Recht   und  Redlichkeit   bleiben,  so 
mils  sen  die  Gesellschaften  untergehen.  " 

2  An  die  Pfarrherren,  wider  den  Wucher  zu  predigen  (1540). 
Walch  ed.,  x.,  860  et  seq. 


The  Functions  of  the  State        219 

This  is  so  clear  and  plain  that,  though  all  law 
and  law  books  were  lost,  reason,  however  weak 
it  might  be,  would  dictate  it.  The  works  on 
jurisprudence  term  this  damage  "  Inter esse,"  in 
Latin,  and  such  a  loan  is  certainly  not  usurious, 
but  a  praiseworthy  and  honourable  service  and 
good  work.  The  determination  of  what  is  fairly 
due  the  lender — whether  money  or  property — is 
the  function  of  the  jurists;  or,  best  of  all,  it  may 
be  settled  by  means  of  competent  arbitrators, 
expert  referees,  or  by  mutual  friends.  No  law 
can  be  enacted  so  pointed  and  definite  as  to 
include  all  cases  or  circumstances.  But  this  is 
a  legal  question  for  the  jurists. 

Luther  then  refers  to  large  profits  made  in 
markets  and  at  fairs,  such  as  thirty  and  forty 
per  cent.  The  man  who  has  a  million  florins 
would  receive,  at  such  a  rate,  an  annual  income 
of  400,000  florins, — the  income  of  a  king,  and 
with  it  would  incur  no  risk,  either  in  body  or  estate, 
and  would  not  labour,  but  sit  back  of  the  stove 
and  roast  apples.  A  thief  could  thus  remain  at 
home,  and  swallow  the  whole  world  in  ten  years. 

Inasmuch  as  the  temporal  authorities  are  inert 
and  lazy  in  this  matter,  or  in  part  too  weak,  to 
restrain  this  distress,  let  the  clergy  teach  and  warn 
the  people,  Luther  advises,  to  look  upon  the 
usurers  as  incarnate  devils,  and  upon  Turks, 


220  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

Tartars,  and  heathen  as  angels  as  compared  with 
usurers.  The  school  teachers  should  in  like  man- 
ner train  the  youth.  The  princes  and  lords  will 
have  to  suffer  for  bearing  the  sword  in  vain  and 
permitting  such  murderers,  robbers,  usurers,  and 
skinflints  to  have  free  play  in  their  territories. 

MARRIAGE  AND  MORALITY 

Prostitution 

It  is  the  province  of  the  state  forcibly  to  abate 
social  immoralities.  Under  whatever  guise,  though 
that  of  a  religious  creed  or  teaching,  gross  im- 
morality cannot  be  and  must  not  be  tolerated 
by  the  state.  Writing  in  an  age,  as  compared 
with  ours,  of  relative  coarseness,  obscenity,  im- 
modesty, and  immorality,1  Luther  held  that  the 
civil  government  should  regulate,  indeed  encour- 
age, marriage,  and  that  it  should  prohibit  pros- 
titution. In  his  Appeal  to  the  German  Nobility,  he 
argues : 

»  A  most  interesting  study  of  this  subject  will  be  found  in 
chapters  vi  and  vii  of  Vol.  VIII,  entitled  Women  of  the 
Teutonic  Nations,  by  Dr.  Hermann  Schoenfeld,  1907,  in  the 
series  Women  in  all  Ages  and  in  all  Countries.  At  the  end 
of  the  fifteenth  and  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
prostitution  had  reached  alarming  proportions  in  Germany. 
Shameless  immorality  prevailed  in  varying  degrees  among 
all  classes. 


The  Functions  of  the  State       221 

Is  it  not  a  terrible  thing  that  we  Christians  should 
maintain  public  brothels,  though  we  all  vow  chastity  in 
our  baptism?  I  well  know  all  that  can  be  said  on 
this  matter;  that  it  is  not  peculiar  to  one  nation,  that 
it  would  be  difficult  to  demolish  it,  and  that  it  is 
better  thus  than  that  virgins,  or  married  women,  or 
honourable  women  should  be  dishonoured.  But 
should  not  the  spiritual  and  temporal  powers  combine 
to  find  some  means  of  meeting  these  difficulties 
without  any  such  heathen  practice  ?  If  the  people  of 
Israel  existed  without  this  scandal,  why  should  not 
a  Christian  nation  be  able  to  do  so?  How  do  so 
many  towns  and  villages  manage  to  exist  without 
these  houses?  Why  should  not  great  cities  be  able 
to  do  so?  ...  It  is  the  duty  of  those  in  authority 
to  seek  the  good  of  their  subjects.  But  if  those  in 
authority  considered  how  young  people  might  be 
brought  together  in  marriage,  the  prospect  of  mar- 
riage would  help  every  man  and  protect  him  from 
temptations. 

In  Luther  we  find  a  striking  departure  from 
the  attitude  and  teaching  of  the  church  prior  to 
and  in  his  day.  By  the  ecclesiastical  authorities 
it  was  'held  that  the  church  alone  properly  had 
jurisdiction  over  the  question  of  marriage,  and 
the  canonical  laws  included  civil  as  well  as  spirit- 
ual affairs.  Luther  repudiated  these  canonical 
laws  on  the  subject  of  marriage,  and  separated 
its  civil  from  its  ecclesiastical  aspect.  He  main- 


222  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

tained  that  marriage,  as  the  basis  of  all  family 
rights,  lies  entirely  within  the  province  of  the 
state  and  must  be  regulated  of  necessity  by  the 
civil  government.  "  Marriage  and  the  married 
state,"  he  declared,  "are  civil  matters,  in  the 
management  of  which  we  priests  and  ministers 
of  the  church  must  not  intermeddle.  But  when 
we  are  required,  either  before  the  church,  or  in 
the  church,  to  bless  the  pair,  to  pray  over  them, 
or  even  to  marry  them,  then  it  is  our  bounden 
duty  so  to  do."1 

THE  PROBLEM  OF  PAUPERISM 

In  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century 
Germany  was  overrun  with  mendicant  monks, 
pilgrims,  wandering  students,  and  hordes  of 
aimless  beggars,  vagrants,  and  shiftless  criminals. 
Luther  realised,  as  does  the  modern  age,  that 
this  is  a  subject  that  can  be  handled  only  by  the 
state.2  His  statement  of  the  problem  and  his 
method  for  its  solution  are  so  interesting  as  to 
merit  attention.  In  his  Appeal  to  the  German 
Nobility  he  asserts  that  it  is  one  of  the  most 
urgent  necessities  to  abolish  all  begging  in  Christen- 
dom. No  one  should  go  about  begging  among 

1  Traubuchlein.       See  Geffcken:  Church  and  State,  i..  303. 
Also  see  Tischreden,  Walch  ed.,  xxii.,  861,  sec.  29;  1159,  sec. 
70  ;  and  1174,  sec.  97. 

2  Kelly:  Evolution  and  Effort,  p.  279. 


The  Functions  of  the  State        223 

Christians.  "It  would  not  be  hard  to  do  this 
if  we  attempted  it  with  good  heart  and  courage." 
Each  town  should  support  its  own  poor  and 
should  not  allow  strange  beggars  to  come  in, 
whatever  they  may  call  themselves,  pilgrims, 
or  mendicant  monks.  Every  town  should  feed 
its  own  poor;  and,  if  it  were  too  small,  the  people 
in  the  neighbouring  villages  should  be  called  upon 
to  contribute.  As  it  is,  they  have  to  support 
many  knaves  and  vagabonds  under  the  name 
of  beggars.  ' '  If  they  did  what  I  propose,  they 
would  at  least  know  who  were  really  poor." 

There  should  also  be  an  overseer  or  guardian, 
who  should  know  all  the  poor,  and  should  inform 
the  town  council,  or  the  priest,  of  their  require- 
ments; or  some  other  similar  provision  might  be 
made.  He  goes  on  to  say: 

There  is  no  occupation,  in  my  opinion,  in  which 
there  is  so  much  knavery  and  cheating  as  among 
beggars,  which  could  easily  be  done  away  with.  This 
general  unrestricted  begging  is,  furthermore,  injuri- 
ous to  the  common  people.  I  estimate  that,  of  the 
five  or  six  orders  of  mendicant  monks,  each  one  visits 
every  place  more  than  six  or  seven  times  in  the  year. 
Then  there  are  the  common  beggars,  emissaries  and 
pilgrims.  In  this  way  I  calculate  every  city  has  a 
blackmail  levied  on  it  about  sixty  times  a  year,  not 
counting  rates  and  taxes  paid  to  the  civil  government 


224  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

and  the  useless  robberies  of  the  Roman  See;  so  that 
it  is  to  my  mind  one  of  the  greatest  of  God's  miracles, 
how  we  manage  to  live  and  support  ourselves.  .  .  . 

If  a  man  will  be  poor,  he  should  not  be  rich.  If 
he  will  be  rich,  let  him  put  his  hand  to  the  plough,  and 
get  wealth  himself  out  of  the  earth.  It  is  enough  to 
provide  decently  for  the  poor,  that  they  may  not  die 
of  cold  and  hunger.  It  is  not  right  that  one  should 
work  that  another  may  be  idle,  and  live  ill  that 
another  may  live  well,  as  is  now  the  perverse  abuse, 
for  St.  Paul  says:  "If  any  would  not  work,  neither 
should  he  eat.  "J  God  has  not  ordained  that  any 
one  should  live  of  the  goods  of  others,  except  priests 
and  ministers  alone,  as  St.  Paul  says  in  I  Corinthians 
ix.,  14,  for  their  spiritual  work's  sake,  as  Christ  says 
to  the  Apostles:  "The  labourer  is  worthy  of  his 
hire." 

In  an  earlier  tract,2  Luther  declares  there 
should  not  be  any  begging  or  suffering  from  want. 
Yet  there  is  so  much  begging  that  it  has  become 
an  honour.  And  not  only  do  laymen  beg,  but  it  is 
carried  on  by  the  spiritual  priesthood  as  a  precious 
or  meritorious  thing.  The  spiritual  and  temporal 
authorities  would  not  act  unjustly  if  they  were 
to  prohibit  all  begging.  To  do  away  with  such 

»  2  Thessalonians  iii.,  10. 

2  Von  Betrug  und  Uebervortheilung  im  Handel  und  Wandel, 
insonderheit  vom  Zins  und  Wucher.  Grosser  Sermon  vom 
Wucher  (1519-1520).  Weimar  ed.,  6  Band,  33  et  seq. 


The  Functions  of  the  State       225 

burdens  and  impositions,  the  pope,  bishops,  kings, 
princes  and  lords  should  take  such  action  that, 
either  through  their  own  orders  or  in  a  general 
council,  it  might  be  enacted  and  ordered  that  each 
city  and  village  provide  for  its  own  poor,  that 
begging  cease,  or  at  least  that  each  place  does 
not  impose  its  poor  upon  other  places,  as  is  now 
the  undesirable  practice. 

Luther  was  sufficiently  interested  in  an  old 
book  entitled  the  Liber  Vagatorum  that  he  pub- 
lished it  with  a  preface  of  his  own  in  which  he 
says: 

This  little  book  about  the  knavery  of  beggars  was 
first  printed  by  one  who  calls  himself  "  Expertus  in 
Truffis,"  i.e.,  a  fellow  right  well  knowing  in  roguery, 
which  the  book  very  well  proves.  .  .  .  Princes,  lords, 
counsellors  of  state,  and  everybody  should  be  prudent 
and  cautious  in  dealing  with  beggars,  and  should  learn 
that,  whereas  people  will  not  give  and  help  honest 
paupers  and  needy  neighbours  as  ordained  by  God, 
they  give  by  persuasion  of  the  Devil,  and  contrary 
to  God's  judgment,  ten  times  as  much  to  vagabonds 
and  desperate  rogues.  .  .  .  For  this  reason  every 
village  and  town  should  know  their  own  poor,  as 
written  down  in  the  register,  and  assist  them.  But 
as  to  outlandish  and  strange  beggars,  they  ought  not 
to  be  borne  with  unless  they  have  proper  letters  and 
certificates;  for  all  the  great  rogueries  mentioned  in 
15 


226  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

this  book  are  done  by  them.  If  each  town  would  only 
keep  an  eye  on  its  own  paupers,  such  knaveries  would 
soon  cease.  I  have  myself  of  late  years  been  cheated 
and  befooled  by  such  tramps  and  liars  more  than  I 
like  to  confess.1 


Luther  blamed  the  teachings  of  the  church  of 
his  day  as  to  the  merit  of  making  pilgrimages  for 
developing  and  cultivating  the  vagabond  life. 
A  man's  first  duty  is  to  provide  a  support  for  his 
wife  and  family,  and  then  assist  the  needy  and 
worthy  poor  of  his  own  community.  He  proposes, 
if  not  the  abolition,  at  least  a  strict  supervision 
of  pilgrimages  to  Rome.  It  often  happens,  he 
declares,2  that  a  man  goes  on  a  pilgrimage  to 
Rome,  spends  fifty  or  a  hundred  guilders,  more 
or  less,  which  no  one  has  commanded  him,  while 
his  wife  and  children  or  those  dearest  to  him  are 
left  at  home  in  want  and  misery.  .  .  .  These 
pilgrimages  are  the  reason  for  there  being  so 
many  beggars,  who  commit  numberless  villainies, 
learn  to  beg  without  need,  and  get  accustomed 
to  it.  Hence  arises  the  vagabond  life,  with  attend- 


*  Lindsay:  Luther  and  the  German  Reformation,  pp.  201, 
202. 

2  An  den  christlichen  Adel  deutscher  Nation  von  des  christ- 
lichen  Standes  Besserung  (1520).  Weimar  ed.,  6  Band,  381  et 
seq. 


The  Functions  of  the  State       227 

ant  and  consequent  miseries.  The  priest  or  the 
temporal  authorities  should  supervise  this  matter 
and  tell  the  man  proposing  to  make  a  pilgrimage 
to  spend  his  money  and  the  labour  the  pilgrimage 
would  cost  on  a  thousand-fold  better  work,  namely, 
on  his  family  and  his  poor  neighbours.  If  a  man 
can  afford  it,  and  wishes  to  travel  out  of  a  desire 
to  see  other  cities  and  countries,  of  course  he  may 
be  allowed  to  do  so. 

In  another  tract,1  Luther  declared  that  it  is 
the  province  of  agriculture  to  nourish,  and  of  the 
military  to  defend.  The  emperor  or  the  prince 
should  see  that  the  latter  are  armed  and  ready 
for  service,  and  that  those  engaged  in  the  former 
duty  intelligently  improve  the  maintenance;  but 
they  should  not  endure  useless  people,  who  do  not 
help  to  defend  or  support,  but  only  consume,  and 
lounge  and  idle  away  their  time;  but  should  expel 
them  from  the  country,  or  put  them  to  work,  just 
as  the  bees  drive  out  from  the  hive  the  drones 
that  do  not  work,  yet  consume  the  honey  of  the 
other  bees.2 

1  Ob  Kriegsleute  auch  in  einem  seligen  Stande  sein  konnen 
(1526).     Weimar  ed.,  19  Band,  616  et  seq. 

2  Interesting  studies  of  the  problem  of  pauperism  will  be 
found  in  the  following  works :  Hoffman :  Sphere  of  the  State. 
Chap,  x  is  devoted  to  "The  state  in  its  relation  to  the  poor.  " 
Woolsey:    Political  Science.      "The  state's  relations  to  the 
poor"  is  discussed  in  i.,  232  et  seq. 


228  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

SUMPTUARY  LAWS 

Luther  was  an  advocate  of  the  simple  life.  He 
denounces  the  extravagance  of  his  day  in  eating 
and  drinking,  in  dress  and  display,  alike.  It  was 
an  age  of  marked  contrast  between  rich  and  poor, 
between  some  living  in  highest  luxury  and  others 
in  deepest  want.  There  were  brilliant  lights  and 
dark  shadows.  He  strongly  recommends  and 
urges,1  therefore,  the  enactment  of  a  general  law 
and  consent  of  the  German  nation  against  pro- 
fusion and  extravagance  in  dress,  which  is  the 
cause  of  so  much  poverty  among  the  nobles  and 
the  people.  "Surely  God  has  given  to  us,"  he 
says,  "as  to  other  nations,  enough  wool,  fur,  flax, 
and  whatever  else  is  required  for  the  decent  cloth- 
ing of  every  class,  and  it  cannot  be  necessary  to 
spend  such  enormous  sums  for  silk,  velvet,  cloth 
of  gold,  and  all  other  kinds  of  outlandish  stuff. 
.  .  .  Every  man  wishes  to  be  every  other  man's 
equal,  and  this  causes  and  increases  pride  and 
envy  among  us,  as  we  deserve,  all  which  would 
cease,  with  many  other  misfortunes,  if  our  self- 
will  would  but  let  us  be  gratefully  content  with 
what  God  has  given  us." 

1  An  den  christlichen  Adel  deutscher  Nation  von  des  christ- 
lichen  Standes  Besserung  (1520).  Weimar  ed.,  6  Band,  381 
et  seq.  Wace  and  Buchheim:  Luther's  Primary  Works,  p. 
161  et  seq. 


The  Functions  of  the  State       229 

Regarding  other  forms  of  extravagance  he 
speaks  as  follows: 

It  is  similarly  necessary  to  diminish  the  use  of 
spices,  which  is  one  of  the  ships  in  which  our  gold  is 
sent  away  from  Germany.  God's  mercy  has  given 
us  more  food,  and  that  both  precious  and  good,  than 
is  to  be  found  in  other  countries.  I  shall  probably 
be  accused  of  making  foolish  and  impossible  sugges- 
tions, as  if  I  wished  to  destroy  the  great  business  of 
commerce.  But  I  am  only  doing  my  part.  If  the 
community  does  not  mend  matters,  every  man  should 
do  it  for  himself. 

Then  there  is  the  excess  in  eating  and  drinking, 
for  which  we  Germans  have  an  ill  reputation  in  foreign 
countries,  as  our  special  vice,  and  which  has  become 
so  common,  and  gained  so  much  the  upper  hand,  that 
sermons  avail  nothing.  The  loss  of  money  caused 
by  it  is  not  the  worst ;  but  in  its  train  come  murder, 
adultery,  theft,  blasphemy,  and  all  vices.  The 
temporal  power  should  do  something  to  prevent  it. 
Otherwise  it  will  come  to  pass,  as  Christ  foretold,  that 
the  last  day  shall  come  as  a  thief  in  the  night,  and 
shall  find  them  eating  and  drinking,  marrying  and 
giving  in  marriage,  planting  and  building,  buying 
and  selling,1  just  as  things  go  on  now,  and  that  so 
strongly  that  I  apprehend  lest  the  day  of  judgment 
be  at  hand,  even  now  when  We  least  expect  it. 

For  a  similar  reason,  Luther  urged  the  aboli- 

1  Matthew  xxiv.,  38.     Luke  xvii.,  26. 


230  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

tion  of  all  saints*  days,  excepting  only  Sunday. 
Aside  from  the  spiritual  evils  which  he  alleged 
were  involved  in  their  keeping,  he  declared  that 
these  saints'  days  inflict  bodily  injury  on  the 
common  man  in  two  ways.  He  loses  a  day's 
work,  and  he  spends  more  than  usual,  besides 
weakening  his  body  and  making  himself  unfit  for 
labour,  as  we  see  every  day;  and  yet  no  one  tries 
to  improve  it.  If  anything  is  contrary  to  God's 
will  and  harmful  to  men  in  body  and  soul,  it  is 
the  duty  of  every  community,  every  council,  and 
every  governmental  authority  to  prevent  and 
abolish  it. 

A  famous  German,  writing  more  than  a  century 
ago,  declared  "that  the  state  must  wholly  refrain 
from  every  attempt  to  operate  directly  or  indi- 
rectly on  the  morals  and  character  of  the  nation, 
otherwise  than  as  such  a  policy  may  become  inevi- 
table as  a  natural  consequence  of  its  other  abso- 
lutely necessary  measures;  and  that  everything 
calculated  to  promote  such  a  design,  and  particu- 
larly all  special  supervision  of  education,  religion, 
sumptuary  laws,  etc.,  lies  wholly  outside  the 
limits  of  its  legitimate  activity."1 

The  modern  state  does  not  seriously  attempt  to 
make  its  subjects  virtuous  or  frugal  by  law;2  but 

1  Humboldt:  Sphere  and  Duties  of  Government,  p.  113. 

2  Wilson:  The  State,  p.  627. 


The  Functions  of  the  State       231 

it  has  a  large  field  of  legislation  looking  to  the 
health,  safety,  and  lives  of  the  people,  in  the  way 
of  pure  food  and  drug  laws,  the  inspection  of  cattle, 
dressed  meats  and  other  food  stuffs,  prohibition 
of  the  sale  of  poisons  except  on  physician's  pre- 
scription, and  the  various  laws  regulating,  con- 
trolling, or  prohibiting  the  sale  of  intoxicating 
liquor. 


CHAPTER  IX 

LIMITS  OF  THE  STATE 

THE  ancient  state  asserted  and  enforced  the 
right  to  interfere  in  every  relation  of  life. 
No  field  of  activity  was  recognised  by  the  state 
as  pertaining  absolutely  and  solely  to  the  individ- 
ual. The  citizen  was  born  and  was  expected  to 
live  for  the  state,  and  it  was  for  the  state  to 
determine  his  life. 

In  the  Middle  Ages,  among  the  Teutons  them- 
selves, with  all  their  innate  love  of  liberty,1  there 

i  There  are  two  possible  views  as  to  the  relation  between  the 
state  and  the  individual.  "According  to  the  one  the  entire 
sphere  of  right  of  the  individual  is  the  product  of  state 
concession  and  permission.  According  to  the  other  the 
state  not  only  engenders  rights  of  the  individual,  but  it  also 
leaves  the  individual  that  measure  of  liberty  which  it  does 
not  itself  require  in  the  interest  of  the  whole.  This  liberty, 
however,  it  does  not  create  but  only  recognises. 

"The  first  conception  is  based  upon  the  idea  of  the  state's 
omnipotence  as  it  was  most  sharply  denned  in  the  absolutist 
doctrines  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries.  .  .  . 

' '  The  second  theory  on  the  other  hand  is  that  of  the  Teutonic 
232 


Limits  of  the  State  233 

was  no  freedom  of  thought,  of  speech,  or  of  reli- 
gious belief.  To  lose  standing  in  the  Roman 
Church  was  to  lose  standing  in  the  state.  Excom- 
munication from  the  former  was  but  the  fore- 
runner of  the  ban  of  the  latter.  The  man  who 
differed  in  his  views  from  the  teachings  of  that 
Church  was  without  the  pale  and  the  protection 
of  the  state.1  His  civil  rights,  such  as  he  had, 
ceased  to  exist.  His  faith,  his  thought,  his  speech, 
his  writings,  his  very  conscience,  were  all  alike 
to  be  determined  by  ecclesiastical  authority. 
Contrary  to  that  authority,  he  must  not  harbour 
a  moment's  speculation,  or  speak  a  single  word. 
This  applied  not  only  to  religious  creed  and  wor- 
ship, but  to  all  political,  scientific,  economic,  and 
social  questions.2  The  state  was  declared  by  the 
Church  of  Rome  to  be  its  servant,  obligated  to  do 


conception  of  right.  .  .  .  However  much  the  boundaries 
of  that  recognised  liberty  have  changed  in  the  course  of  time, 
the  consciousness  that  such  bouidaries  existed  was  never 
extinguished  in  the  Teutonic  peoples  even  at  the  time  of 
the  absolute  state. " 

Jellinek:   The  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  and  of 
Citizens,  pp.  95-97. 

1  The  Council  of  Constance,  for  example,  in  the  case  of 
John  Huss,  declared  that  an  obstinate  heretic  was  not  en- 
titled to  any  privileges,  and  that  no  law,  human  or  divine, 
required  men  to  observe  faith  with  such  a  one.     Hallam: 
Middle  Ages,  i.,  157. 

2  As  in  the  cases  of_Copernicus  and  Galileo. 


234  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

its  bidding.  Status  in  the  state  was  dependent 
upon  status  in  the  church.  The  state  was  but 
the  armed  force  of  the  church  to  enforce  its  decrees 
and  execute  its  will.  As  against  this  view  that  the 
church  was  supreme  over  the  state,  Luther  de- 
clared the  equality  of  cleric  and  layman,  and 
demanded  the  emancipation  of  the  state  from 
the  control  of  the  church.  He  conceded  the 
jurisdiction  and  authority  of  the  church  in 
matters  of  doctrine,  morals,  and  internal  ad- 
ministration; that  it  is  properly  concerned  with 
the  spiritual,  the  unseen,  the  dissemination  of 
religious  truth,  the  cultivation  of  the  heart. 
Its  adherents,  in  all  secular  matters,  are  not  in- 
dependent of  but  subject  to  civil  authority. 
AH  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  author- 
ity in  temporal  affairs  belongs  exclusively  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  state.  When  necessary,  Luther 
asserted  that  the  state  may  go  so  far  as  to  protect 
and  defend  the  church,  as  the  different  members 
of  the  human  body  assist  one  another  when 
occasion  demands;  but  "as  the  church  is  not  to 
interfere  in  civil  matters,  so  the  state  has  as 
little  right  to  intermeddle  in  matters  purely 
ecclesiastical,  except  where  life  and  property  are 
at  stake."1 

Luther's  court  of  last  resort  was  the  word  of 

»  Geffcken:  Church  and  State,  i.,  304. 


Limits  of  the  State  235 

God,  on  which  he  took  a  determined  stand;  not  as 
interpreted  by  a  hierarchy,  or  by  a  spiritual 
potentate,  or  by  any  other  association  or  individual 
—for  he  failed  in  his  appeal  to  the  Roman  Pope 
and  again  in  his  appeal  to  a  general  council  of 
the  Roman  Church — but  as  read  and  interpreted 
by  the  individual  himself.  Where  that  word 
speaks,  he  refused  to  yield  to  any  other  authority, 
secular  or  ecclesiastical.  Unless  convinced  by 
the  word  of  God  or  by  cogent  reason,  he  declared 
at  the  Diet  of  Worms,  that  he  was  wrong,  he 
could  not  and  would  not  retract  what  he  had 
written.  The  individual  conscience,  he  main- 
tained, cannot  be  bound.  Each  man  must  deter- 
mine the  meaning  of  the  Word  for  himself.  And 
the  inevitable  result  of  this  principle  is  individual 
liberty.  He  held  that  the  state's  jurisdiction 
covers  all  persons,  ecclesiastical  and  lay,  within 
its  borders;  that  the  church  has  no  jurisdiction 
over  temporal  affairs;  that  coercion  is  the  pre- 
rogative of  civil  government  exclusively;  that 
obedience  to  legitimate  civil  government  is  the 
duty  of  the  individual;  but  that  submission,  how- 
ever, is  not  a  duty,  and  self-defence  is  a  right  of 
the  individual  in  case  of  tyranny  or  a  command  to 
do  that  which  is  explicitly  prohibited  by  the  word 
of  God ;  that  religious  and  civil  liberty  is  the  right 
of  the  individual;  and  that  civil  government  is  to 


236  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

be  viewed  as  a  trust  to  be  executed  in  the  best 
interests  of  the  governed.  The  relation  of  man 
with  man,  the  external  life  as  it  affects  others  is 
under  the  control  of  the  state.  Even  religious 
belief  or  creed  may  become  subversive  to  the 
peace  and  safety  of  the  community,  and  force 
may  be  properly  used  to  suppress  the  disorder. 
The  proceedings  of  the  fanatics  had  early  led 
Luther  to  a  recognition  of  this  principle.  The 
peace  and  order  of  the  state  must  be  maintained 
against  disorder,  personal  violence,  destruction 
of  property,  public  immorality  and  treason,  though 
they  come  in  the  guise  of  religion.  The  state 
must  grant  liberty  of  conscience,  freedom  of  speech 
and  the  privilege  of  the  press.  These  are  inalien- 
able rights  belonging  alike  to  every  individual, 
subject  only  to  the  limitation  that  they  are  not 
permitted  to  encroach  upon  the  rights  of  others. 
The  natural,  the  almost  inevitable,  consequence 
of  the  declaration  and  recognition  of  these  prin- 
ciples was  eventually  the  establishment  of  modern, 
constitutional  law.  It  was  not  in  consequence  of 
his  teaching,  but  merely  in  spite  of  it,  that  for 
the  next  two  centuries  monarchical  government 
became  more  autocratic,  as  feudalism  was  being 
transformed  into  civil  government.  It  has  been 
shown  in  a  previous  chapter  that  the  subject  is 
not  bound  to  render  obedience  to  a  government 


Limits  of  the  State  237 

that  has  not  been  legally  established  and  is  not 
constitutionally  conducted.  All  through  Luther's 
writings,  and  in  his  own  acts  as  well,  is  to  be  read 
the  right  of  the  individual  to  think  and  believe 
in  matters  political,  religious  and  otherwise,  as  he 
sees  proper.  His  is  the  right  to  read  the  Bible 
and  any  other  book  he  may  desire.  He  has  the 
right  to  confer  and  counsel  with  others,  to  express 
and  declare  his  views  pro  and  con,  in  speech  or 
print,  so  long  as  he  abides  by  and  remains  within 
the  laws  of  the  land.  Luther  firmly  believed  in 
the  liberty  of  the  individual  as  to  conscience, 
speech  and  press.  The  search  for  truth  must  be 
untrammelled. 

In  the  Appeal  to  the  German  Nobility,1  Luther 
declares  that  no  one  in  Christendom  has  any 
authority  to  do  harm,  or  to  forbid  others  to  prevent 
harm  being  done.  He  declares  that  faith  must 
be  kept  between  a  state  and  its  citizens,  between 
a  ruler  and  his  subjects,  between  man  and  man. 
He  maintains  that  it  is  not  right  to  put  a  man  to 
death  because  of  religious  belief  or  unbelief.  In 
this  Appeal  he  says : 

No  one  can  deny  that  it  is  breaking  God's  command- 
ments to  violate  faith  and  a  safe-conduct,  even 

»  An  den  christlichen  Adel  deutscher  Nation  von  des  christ- 
lichen  Standes  Besserung  (1520).  Weimar  ed.f  6  Band,  381 
et  seq. 


238  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

though  it  be  promised  to  the  Devil  himself,  much  more 
then  in  the  case  of  a  heretic.  .  .  .  Even  though  he 
[John  Huss]  were  a  heretic,  however  bad  he  may  have 
been,  yet  he  was  burned  unjustly  and  in  violation  of 
God's  commandments,  and  we  must  not  force  the 
Bohemians  to  approve  this,  if  we  wish  ever  to  be  at 
one  with  them.  Plain  truth  must  unite  us,  not 
obstinacy.  It  is  no  use  to  say,  as  they  said  at  the 
time,  that  a  safe-conduct  need  not  be  kept  if  promised 
to  a  heretic ;  that  is  as  much  as  to  say,  one  may  break 
God's  commandments  in  order  to  keep  God's  com- 
mandments. They  were  infatuated  and  blinded  by 
the  Devil,  that  they  could  not  see  what  they  said  or 
did.  God  has  commanded  us  to  observe  a  safe-con- 
duct; and  this  we  must  do  though  the  world  should 
perish;  much  more  then  where  it  is  only  a  question 
of  a  heretic  being  set  free.  We  should  overcome 
heretics  with  books,  not  with  fire,  as  the  old  Fathers 
did.  If  there  were  any  skill  in  overcoming  heretics 
with  fire,  the  executioner  would  be  the  most  learned 
doctor  in  the  world;  and  there  would  be  no  need  of 
study,  but  he  that  could  get  another  into  his  power 
could  burn  him. 

In  the  same  year  that  he  wrote  his  Appeal  to 
the  German  Nobility,  Luther  published  a  tract 
entitled  Concerning  Christian  Liberty,1  in  which 
he  discusses  two  propositions  concerning  Christian 

1  Von  der  Freiheit  eines  Christenmenschen  (1520).  Weimar 
ed.,  7  Band,  12  et  seq. 


Limits  of  the  State  239 

liberty  and  servitude  which,  at  first  glance,  may 
seem  contradictory,  but  which,  in  his  explanation, 
supplement  one  another.  He  says:  (i)  a  Christian 
man  is  the  most  free  lord  of  all,  and  subject  to 
none;  (2)  a  Christian  man  is  the  most  dutiful 
servant  of  all,  and  subject  to  every  one.  In  this 
work,  Luther  shows  a  breadth  of  view  recognising 
the  liberty  of  the  individual  and  charity  towards 
others  in  non-essential  matters,  both  as  to  theory 
and  practice;  he  urges  obedience  to  authority, 
save  when  it  contradicts  the  teaching  of  the  word 
of  God;  for  the  Christian  freeman,  he  says,  will 
speak  thus :  "  I  will  fast,  I  will  pray,  I  will  do  this 
or  that  which  is  commanded  me  by  men,  not  as 
having  any  need  of  these  things  for  justification 
or  salvation,  but  that  I  may  thus  comply  with 
the  will  of  the  pope,  of  the  bishop,  of  such  a  com- 
munity, or  such  a  magistrate,  or  of  my  neighbour 
as  an  example  to  him;  for  this  cause  I  will  do  and 
suffer  all  things,  just  as  Christ  did  and  suffered 
much  more  for  me,  though  He  needed  not  at  all 
to  do  so  on  His  own  account,  and  made  Himself 
for  my  sake  under  the  law,  when  He  was  not 
under  the  law;  and  although  tyrants  may  do  me 
violence  or  wrong  in  requiring  obedience  to  these 
things,  yet  it  will  not  hurt  me  to  do  them,  so 
long  as  they  are  not  done  against  God." 

A  few  years  later,  in  his  tract  on  Secular  Author- 


240  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

ity^  he  considers  the  length  of  the  arm  of  civil 
authority  and  how  far  its  hand  properly  reaches: 

Unbearable  loss  follows  where  it  is  given  too  much 
room,  and  it  is  likewise  not  without  loss  where  it  is 
too  restricted.  Here  it  punishes  too  little;  there  it 
punishes  too  much.  Although  it  is  more  desirable 
that  it  offend  on  the  side  of  punishing  too  little  than 
that  it  punish  too  severely ;  because  it  is  always  better 
to  permit  a  knave  to  live  than  to  put  a  good  man 
to  death,  inasmuch  as  the  world  still  has  and  must 
have  knaves  but  has  few  good  men. 

In  the  first  place^it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  two 
classes  of  the  human  race,  one  of  whom  is  in  the  king- 
dom of  God  under  Christ  and  the  other  in  the  kingdom 
of  the  world  under  civil  authority,  have  two  kinds 
of  laws,  for  every  kingdom  must  have  its  laws  and 
its  rights,  and  no  kingdom  or  regime  can  stand 
without  law,  as  daily  experience  shows.  Temporal 
government  has  laws  that  do  not  reach  farther  than 
over  person  and  property  and  what  is  external  on 
the  earth;  for  God  will  not  permit  any  one  to  rule 
over  the  soul  of  man  but  HimselfJ  Therefore  where 
temporal  power  presumes  to  give  laws  to  the  soul, 
it  touches  God's  rule  and  misleads  and  destroys  the 
souls.  We  wish  to  make  that  so  clear  that  men  may 
comprehend  it,  in  order  that  our  knights,  the  princes 
and  bishops,  may  see  what  fools  they  are  when  seeking 

t  Von  weltlicher  Oberkeit,  wie  weit  man  ihr  Gehorsam 
schuldig  sei  (1523).  Weimar  ed,  //  Band,  229  et  seq. 


Limits  of  the  State  241 

to  force  people  by  their  laws  and  commandments  to 
believe  thus  or  so.  When  a  man  lays  a  human  law 
or  commandment  upon  the  soul,  that  it  must  believe 
this  or  that,  as  the  man  prescribes,  it  is  assuredly  not 
God's  word.  .  .  .  Therefore  it  is  a  thoroughly  foolish 
thing  to  command  a  man  to  believe  the  church,  the 
Fathers,  the  councils,  although  there  is  nothing  on  it 
from  God's  word. 

Now  tell  me,  how  much  sense  does  the  head  have 
that  lays  down  a  command  on  a  matter  where  it  has 
no  authority?  Who  would  not  hold  as  of  unsound 
mind  the  person  who  would  command  the  moon  to 
shine  when  he  wishes?  How  fitting  would  it  be  if 
the  Leipsic  authorities  would  lay  down  laws  for  us 
at  Wittenberg,  or  we  at  Wittenberg  for  the  people 
of  Leipsic?  Moreover,  let  men  thereby  understand 
that  every  authority  should  and  may  concern  itself 
only  where  it  can  see,  know,  judge,  sentence,  trans- 
form, and  change;  for  what  kind  of  a  judge  is  he  to 
me  who  would  blindly  judge  matters  he  neither  hears 
nor  sees?  Now  tell  me,  how  can  a  man  see,  know, 
judge,  sentence,  and  change  the  heart?  For  that  is 
reserved  to  God  alone.  A  court  should  and  must 
be  certain  when  it  sentences  and  have  everything 
in  clear  light.  But  the  soul's  thoughts  and  impulses 
can  be  known  to  no  one  but  God.  Therefore  it  is 
futile  and  impossible  to  command  or  to  compel  a 
man  by  force  to  believe  thus  or  so.  For  that  purpose 
another  grip  is  necessary.  Force  does  not  accomplish 
it.  For  my  ungracious  lords,  pope  and  bishops  should 


242  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

be  bishops  and  preach  God's  word;  but  they  leave 
that  and  have  become  temporal  princes  and  rule 
with  laws  that  concern  only  person  and  property. 
They  have  reversed  the  order  of  things.  Instead 
of  ruling  souls  (internally)  through  God's  word,  they 
rule  (externally)  castles,  cities,  lands,  and  people,  and 
kill  souls  with  indescribable  murder.  The  temporal 
lords  should,  in  like  manner,  rule  (externally)  land 
and  people ;  but  they  leave  that.  They  can  do  nothing 
more  than  flay  and  shave  the  people,  set  one  tax  and 
one  rent  on  another ;  there  let  loose  a  bear  and  here  a 
wolf;  respect  no  right,  or  faith,  or  truth,  and  conduct 
affairs  so  that  robbers  and  knaves  increase  in  number ; 
and  their  temporal  regime  lies  as  far  beneath  as  the 
regime  of  the  spiritual  tyrants.  Faith  is  a  matter 
concerning  which  each  one  is  responsible  for  himself ; 
for  as  little  as  another  man  can  go  to  heaven  or  hell 
for  me,  so  little  can  he  believe  or  not  believe  for  me ; 
and  as  little  as  he  can  open  or  close  heaven  or  hell 
for  me,  so  little  can  he  drive  me  to  belief  or  unbelief. 
We  have  the  saying  from  St.  Augustine:  " No  one  can 
or  should  be  compelled  to  believe."  The  blind  and 
miserable  people  do  not  see  what  a  vain  and  im- 
possible thing  they  undertake ;  for,  however  imperi- 
ously they  command  and  however  hard  they  drive, 
they  cannot  force  people  any  farther  than  that  they 
follow  with  the  mouth  and  the  hand.  They  cannot 
compel  the  heart,  though  they  should  break  it. 
For  true  is  the  maxim:  Gedanken  sind  zollfrei. 
When  weak  consciences  are  driven  by  force  to  lie, 


Limits  of  the  State  243 

deceive,  and  say  otherwise  than  they  believe  in  the 
heart,  they  burden  themselves  also  with  heavy  sin; 
for  all  the  lies  and  false  witness  given  by  such  weak 
consciences  rest  upon  him  who  forces  them.  x 

Christ    Himself   clearly   recognised   and   concisely  • 
stated  this  truth  when  He  said:  "Render  therefore     / 
unto  Caesar  the  things  which  are  Caesar's;  and  unto   / 
God  the  things  which  are  God's."1     Now,  when  im-      / 
perial  authority  stretches  itself  over  into  God's  king- 
dom and  authority  and  does  not  keep  within  its  own 
separate  jurisdiction,  this  discrimination  between  the 
two  realms  has  not  been  made.     For  the  soul  is  not 
under  the  authority  of  the  emperor.     He  can  neither 
teach  nor  guide  it,  neither  kill  it  nor  give  it  life,  neither 
bind  nor  loose,  neither  judge   nor  sentence,  neither 
hold  nor  let  alone ;  which  necessarily  would  exist  had 
he  authority  to  command  and  lay  laws  over  it;  but 
over  body,  estate,  and  honour  he  has  authority  so  to 
do,  for  they  are  under  his  jurisdiction  and  power. 

David  long  ago  expressed  it  briefly:  "The  heaven, 
even  the  heavens,  are  the  Lord's :  but  the  earth  hath 
he  given  to  the  children  of  men."2  That  is  to  say, 
over  what  is  on  the  earth  and  belongs  to  the  temporal 
earthly  kingdom,  man  has  power  from  God ;  but  what 
belongs  to  heaven  and  to  the  eternal  kingdom  is  under 
the  Lord  of  heaven  alone.  But  finally,  this  is  the 
meaning  of  St.  Peter:  "We  ought  to  obey  God  rather 
than  men."3  He  here  clearly  marks  a  limit  to 

i  Matthew  xxii.,  21.  2  Psalms  cxv.,  16. 

*  Acts  of  the  Apostles  v.,  29. 


244  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

temporal  authority;  for  were  men  obliged  to  observe 
everything  that  civil  authority  wished,  the  command 
"  We  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than  men  "  would  have 
been  given  in  vain. 

If,  now,  your  prince  or  temporal  lord  command  you 
to  believe  this  or  that,  or  to  dispense  with  certain 
books,  say:  "I  am  under  obligations  to  obey  you 
with  body  and  estate;  command  me  within  the  com- 
pass of  your  authority  on  earth  and  I  will  obey  you. 
But  if  you  command  me  as  to  belief,  and  order  me 
to  put  away  books,  I  will  not  obey,  for  then  you  be- 
come a  tyrant  and  overreach  yourself,  and  command 
where  you  have  neither  right  nor  power."  If  your 
goods  are  taken  and  your  disobedience  is  punished, 
you  are  blessed  and  you  may  thank  God  that  you  are 
worthy  to  suffer  for  God's  word.  When  a  prince 
is  in  the  wrong,  his  subjects  are  not  under  obligations 
to  follow  him,  for  no  one  is  obliged  to  do  anything 
against  the  right ;  but  we  must  obey  God,  who  desires 
to  have  the  right,  rather  than  men. 

But  thou  sayest  once  more:  "Yea,  worldly  power 
cannot  compel  to  belief.  It  is  only  external  protec- 
tion against  the  people  being  misled  by  false  doctrine. 
How  else  can  heretics  be  kept  at  bay?"  Answer: 
That  is  the  business  of  bishops,  to  whom  the  office  is 
entrusted,  and  not  to  princes.  For  heresy  can  never 
be  kept  off  by  force;  another  grip  is  wanted  for  that. 
This  is  another  quarrel  and  conflict  than  that  of 
the  sword.  God's  word  must  contend  here.  If  that 
avail  nothing,  temporal  power  will  never  settle  the 


Limits  of  the  State  245 

matter,  though  it  fill  the  world  with  blood.     Heresy 
pertains  to  the  spiritual  world.     You  cannot  cut   it/ 
with  iron,  nor  burn  it  with  fire,  nor  drown  it  in  water.  / 
You  cannot  drive  the  Devil  out  of  the  heart  by   de- 
stroying, with  sword  or  fire,  the  vessel  in  which  he 
lives.     This  is  like  fighting  lightning  with  a  blade  of 
straw. 

In  a  letter  written  by  Luther  in  early  years, 
concerning  the  treatment  of  godless  scorners,1 
he  expresses  this  opinion: 

Even  as  no  one  can  be  compelled  to  accept  the 
Gospel,  so  no  magistrate  must  suffer  anyone  to  traduce 
it.  The  magistrate  must  have  him  up  and  hear  his 
reasons  for  acting  as  he  does.  If  he  can  give  none, 
then  he  must  be  bound  over  to  silence  so  that  the 
seeds  of  dissension  may  not  be  sown.  For  whosoever 
will  speak  against  it  must  do  so  openly,  the  magistrate 
being  called  upon  to  put  down  all  private  disputes 
with  all  his  authority.  This  is  how  we  do  in  Witten- 
berg, and  counsel  others  to  do  the  same.  From  this 
you  will  see  that  the  magistracy  dare  not  tolerate 
what  you  speak  of  in  the  community ;  for  it  is  nothing 
short  of  a  secret  scandal.  Therefore  call  them  out 
to  the  light  of  day,  so  that  they  may  either  justify 
themselves  or  be  vanquished. 

Along  with  the  decalogue  and  the  catechism  in- 
culcate civil  (burgerliche)  and  domestic  virtues,  and 

i  Letter  to  Thomas  Fischer,  a  preacher  in  Malau,  dated 
August  26,  1519.  See  Currie:  Letters  of  Martin  Luther,  p.  47. 


246  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

these  ought  most  frequently  to  be  the  subject  topics 
of  preaching,  and  the  people  be  compelled  to  attend, 
so  that  they  may  be  instructed  as  to  the  duties  of  a 
subject  and  social  life,  whether  they  approve  of  the 
Gospel  or  not,  to  prevent  them  becoming  a  stone  of 
stumbling  to  others,  by  deliberately  setting  at  nought 
political  laws.  For  if  they  live  in  a  community,  they 
must  learn  the  laws  of  the  same  and  obey  them,  even 
against  their  will.  And  they  must  do  this,  not  only 
on  account  of  their  possessions,  but  for  the  sake  of 
their  family. 

Luther  wrote  a  letter  on  another  occasion  to 
the  Elector  John,1  asking  him  to  silence  one 
Hans  Mohr,  who  was  spreading  certain  doctrines 
in  Coburg.  In  another  letter,2  he  lays  down  the 
principle  that  if  unbelievers,  after  instruction, 
persist  in  their  views,  they  should  be  prohibited 
from  proclaiming  them. 

In  1528  he  wrote  in  reference  to  the  Anabaptists: 

Yet  it  is  not  right,  and  I  think  it  great  pity  that 
such  wretched  people  should  be  so  miserably  slain, 
burned,  cruelly  put  to  death;  every  one  should  be  al- 
lowed to  believe  what  he  will.  If  he  believe  wrongly, 
he  will  have  punishment  enough  in  the  eternal  fire 

1  Letter  dated  January  9,  1528.     Brief e,  De  Wette  ed.,  iii., 
256. 

2  Letter  to  J.  L.  Metzsch,    August  26,  1529.     De  Wette  ed., 
iii.,  498. 


Limits  of  the  State  247 

of  hell.  Why  should  he  be  tortured  in  this  life,  too, 
provided  always  that  it  be  a  case  of  mistaken  belief 
only,  and  that  they  are  not  also  unruly  and  oppose 
themselves  to  the  temporal  power?  .  .  .  These  men 
should  be  fought  off  and  withstood  with  scripture  and 
God's  word.  Fire  will  do  very  little  good.1 

Luther  wrote  to  Link : 

I  am  slow  to  adopt  the  judgment  of  blood,  even 
where  it  is  abundantly  deserved.  I  can  in  no  way 
admit  that  false  teachers  should  be  put  to  death. 
It  is  enough  that  they  should  be  banished.2 

He  wrote  to  his  friend  Cresser: 

If  the  courts  wish  to  govern  the  churches  in  their 
own  interests,  God  will  withdraw  His  benediction 
from  them,  and  things  will  become  worse  than  before. 
Satan  still  is  Satan.  Under  the  popes  he  made  the 
church  meddle  in  politics;  in  our  time  he  wishes  to 
make  politics  meddle  with  the  church.3 

It  is  a  grave  error  to  say  that  Luther  believed 
in  liberty  of  thought  and  speech  only  for  himself 

1  Brief  an  zwei  Pfarrherren  von  der  Wiedertaufe  (1528). 
Walch  ed.,  xvii.,  2644,  2645. 

1  Letter  dated  July  14,  1528.  Brief e,  De  Wette  ed.,  iii., 
347.  Bluntschli:  Geschichte  der  neueren  Statswissenschaft, 
allgemeines  Statsrecht  und  Politik,  p.  64. 

3  Hoffman:  The  Sphere  of  the  State,  p.  233. 


248  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

and  not  for  those  who  disagreed  with  him.1     In 
a  letter  to  the  Elector  John,2  he  says: 

As  to  the  question  whether,  if  his  imperial  majesty 
forbid  the  evangelical  preaching,  you  should  submit, 
my  opinion  is  still  the  same.  The  emperor  is  our  lord, 
the  town  and  all  being  his,  so  that  as  no  one  should 
disobey  you  in  your  own  town  of  Torgau,  neither  should 
it  be  done  in  Augsburg.  No  doubt  it  would  be  well  if 
he  were  humbly  asked  not  to  forbid  the  preaching 
without  hearing  it,  but  to  send  some  one  to  hear 
how  they  preach  before  condemning  it.  Certainly  his 
majesty  should  not  forbid  the  pure  preaching  of  the 
word,  as  nothing  seditious  is  being  proclaimed.  If 
this  do  not  avail,  then  might  must  stand  for  right. 
We  have  done  our  best,  and  are  blameless. 

Luther  always  and  consistently  stood  for  obe- 
dience to  the  lawfully  constituted  civil  authorities, 
unless  there  were  a  specific  command  to  do 
something  explicitly  contrary  to  the  word  of 
God.  And  his  attitude  was  the  same  whether  it 
concerned  his  friends  or  his  foes.  The  constitution 

»  "It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  to  take  a  different  side 
from  Luther  in  any  cause  was,  ipso  facto,  to  incur  denuncia- 
tion. "  Mackinnon:  A  History  of  Modern  Liberty,  ii.,  92. 

2  Letter  to  Elector  John  the  Steadfast,  of  Saxony,  dated 
May  15,  1530.  See  Currie:  Letters  of  Martin  Luther,  p.  213. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  German  Protestant  princes  did  not 
yield  to  the  emperor  in  this  matter. 


Limits  of  the  State  249 

of  the  state  and  the  law  of  the  land  were  the 
controlling  factors,  humanly  speaking. 

After  the  Diet  of  Augsburg  of  1530,  when  the 
Protestants  were  given  six  months  within  which 
to  renounce  their  faith,  under  penalty  of  being 
treated  as  heretics  and  outlaws,  Luther  declared 
in  a  letter  to  a  friend,  speaking  of  impending  war: 
"If  war  must  come,  so  let  it  come.  We  have 
prayed  and  worked  long  enough. f>1  In  a  warning 
to  the  German  people  against  the  recess  of  Augs- 
burg of  1 53 1,2  he  emphasises  his  attitude  of 
opposition  to  resorting  to  violence  to  settle  reli- 
gious questions.  He  has  urged  peace  heretofore, 
but  if  the  Papists  will  have  war  and  bloodshed, 
so  let  it  come.  Let  the  worst  come.  The  respon- 
sibility lies  with  them,  not  with  him.  It  is  not 
rebellion  to  resist  such  a  fate.  It  is  both  a  right 
and  a  duty,  under  such  circumstances,  to  resist 
force  with  force,  if  the  struggle  be  begun  by 
others.  The  real  rebel  is  the  one  who  oppresses 
others.  If  the  emperor  permit  himself  to  be 
used  as  a  tool  to  these  religious  bloodhounds,  he 
simply  forfeits  his  right  to  obedience,  and  no 
God-fearing  man  ought  to  obey  him.  "In  such 

1  Letter  to  Justus  Jonas,  dated  Sept.  20,  1530.     Walch  ed., 
xvi.,  1479-1481. 

2  D.Martin  Luther s  Warnung  an  seine  lieben  Deutschen(in den 
ersten  Monaten  des  Jahrs  1531).    Walch  ed.,  xvi.,  1616  et  seq. 


250  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

a  case  no  man  ought  to  obey  the  emperor,  but 
should  know  that  such  obedience  is  absolutely 
forbidden  by  God  and  that  he  who  obeys  is  dis- 
obedient to  God,  and  endangers  his  soul  and  body 
to  all  eternity.  For  the  emperor  acts  in  this  case 
not  only  against  God  and  the  divine  law  but 
against  his  own  imperial  rights,  oath,  duty,  seal, 
and  edicts/*  The  Saxon  jurists  appealed  to 
constitutional  law,  the  fundamental  law  of  the 
empire,  to  prove  that  resistance  against  the 
emperor  might  not  be  unlawful.  The  emperor 
was  not  an  absolute  sovereign.  His  power  was 
limited  by  that  of  the  princes  and  of  the  cities. 
The  Schmalkald  League  (1530-1531)  was  defen- 
sive, not  offensive.  It  was  not  directed  against 
the  emperor  or  any  one  else  by  name.  It  was 
for  mutual  defence  against  any  aggression  that 
might  be  directed  against  them  or  any  of  them, 
by  whomsoever  made.  "It  was  a  declaration  to 
the  emperor  and  the  majority  that  might  is  not 
right  in  matters  of  belief,  and  that  combination 
and  resistance  to  the  oppression  of  conscience, 
by  even  an  emperor  and  a  majority  in  the  name 
of  the  law,  is  a  Christian  duty."1 

Luther  makes  a  distinction,2  on  the  ground  of  a 

1  Mackinnon:  A  History  of  Modern  Liberty,  ii.,  118. 

2  Letter  to  a  citizen  ofNurnberg,  March  1 8,  1531.     Walch  ed., 
x.,  568  et  seq. 


Limits  of  the  State  251 

decision  of  the  jurists,  between  the  Christian  and 
the  citizen,  the  member  of  the  church  and  the 
subject  of  the  state.  As  a  citizen,  he  agrees  with 
the  jurists  that  resistance  is  admissible.  As  a 
theologian,  however,  without  advising  any  Chris- 
tian to  resist,  he  leaves  it  to  the  individual 
conscience  to  decide  how  to  act.  In  one  of  his 
sermons1  he  says: 

But  how  is  it  when  rulers  would  take  the  Gospel 
from  us  or  forbid  preaching?  Then  shall  you  say: 
"  I  shall  not  grant  you  the  Gospel  and  the  word  of  God ; 
you  have  no  authority  in  this  matter,  for  your  juris- 
diction is  temporal,  over  worldly  affairs;  but  the 
Gospel  is  a  spiritual,  heavenly  good,  and  your  author- 
ity does  not  extend  over  the  Gospel  and  the  word 
of  God."  We  recognise,  therefore,  the  emperor  as 
lord  over  temporal  matters,  and  not  over  the  word 
of  God.  ...  To  the  emperor  and  civil  authority 
there  is  due  fear,  custom,  tax,  tribute,  and  obedience. 
The  heart  belongs  to  God,  but  the  body  and  estate 
are  under  civil  authority,  which  rules  over  them  in 
God's  place. 

In  another  sermon  on  the  same  Gospel  lesson, 
Luther  says  further 2 : 

1  From  Kirchen-Postille:  Am  dreiund  zwanzigsten  Sonntage 
nach    Trinitatis,    Matt,    xxii.,    15-22, — "Gebet    dem  Kaiser, 
was  des  Kaisers  ist,  und  Gotte,  was  Gottes  ist. "     Walch  ed., 
xi.,  1802  et  seq. 

2  Kirchen-Postille:  "Gebet  dem  Kaiser  was  des  Kaisers  ist, 


252  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

In  these  words,  too,  the  measure  and  limit  is  set 
to  rulers  that  they  so  govern  as  not  to  take  from  their 
subjects  what  does  not  belong  to  them,  but  to  consider 
that  they  also  give  and  do,  as  they  are  under  obli- 
gations, that  is,  govern  land  and  people  that  they 
may  prosper  and  flourish.  For  to  this  end  are  they 
set  in  civil  authority,  and  not  that  they  should  there 
sit  as  thieves  and  do  according  to  their  own  lusts. 
.  .  .  The  words  of  this  text  do  not  say,  "Give  to 
the  emperor  what  he  wants  and  covets,"  but  it 
places  a  limit  to  how  far  he  may  reach.  It  says, 
what  belongs  to  the  emperor,  or  that  to  which  he 
has  a  right;  for  what  is  termed  his,  that  must  be  his 
by  right. 

Therefore  man  must  not  so  rule  in  the  state,  towns, 
and  homes  as  he  himself  desires,  as  a  lord  might  go 
about  over  his  estate  according  to  his  own  will,  with 
his  servants  and  labourers;  for  it  is  declared  thus: 
I  am  under  obligations  to  give  you  what  is  yours  as 
my  lord,  not  what  you  yourself  want  to  have. 

So,  too,  if  a  mayor,  official  or  other  ruler  oppress 
and  plague  the  people  according  to  his  own  wanton- 
ness; that  is  not  seigniorial  right,  but  as  truly  stolen 
and  taken  from  them  as  when  another  robs. 

To  Luther  the  right  and  the  field  of  civil  author- 
ity, therefore,  has  its  limitations.  It  must  be 
admitted  that,  in  spite  of  the  ruggedness  of  his 

und  Gotte  was  Gottes  ist. "     Zweite  Predigt.     Walch  ed., 
xi.,  1816  et  seq. 


Limits  of  the  State  253 

character,  the  brusqueness  of  his  language,  and 
the  vigour  of  his  opposition  to  the  foe,  he  was  by 
far  the  mildest  and  most  tolerant  of  the  great 
reformers  of  his  century.1 

It  is  an  error  to  suppose  that  Luther  materially 
changed  his  views  on  the  subject  of  the  relation 
of  church  and  state2;  or  that  he  conceded  to  the 
state  per  se  the  right  of  regulating  the  ordinances 
of  the  church,  though  the  church  might  confer 
ecclesiastical  functions  upon  a  civil  ruler.  Owing 
to  the  necessities  and  circumstances  of  the  case, 
Luther  looked  upon  the  princes  as  provisional 
bishops,  or  bishops  by  necessity  (Nothbischofe). 
He  aimed  personally  to  keep  church  and  state 
distinct  and  separate;  but  the  developments  and 
the  needs  of  the  times  brought  the  church  under 

1  Beard:    The   Reformation   of  the   Sixteenth   Century,    in 
Hibbert  Lectures  (1883),  p.  178. 

2  An  interesting  study  of  this  subject  of  the  relation  of 
church  and  state  will  be  found  in  the  following  works: — 
Geffcken:   Church  and  State.     (A   discriminating  discussion 
of  Luther's  attitude  in  the  matter  is  given  in  i.,  289  et  seq.) 
Hoffman:     The    Sphere   of  the   State,    chap.    xiii.      Gierke: 
Political  Theories  of  the  Middle  Age.     Humboldt:  The  Sphere 
and    Duties    of    Government,    chap.     vii.     Bluntschli:    The 
Theory  of  the  State,  p.  39  et  seq.     Prall:  The  State  and  the 
Church,  chap.  iv.     Crapsey :  Religion  and  Politics.     Stanley: 
The  Connection  of  Church  and  State  in  Essays  chiefly  on  Ques- 
tions of  Church  and  State,  pp.  344-377.     Curteisr  The  Three 
Conflicting   Theories  of  Church  and  State,  in  Contemporary 
Review,  February,  1878. 


254  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

the  care  of  the  princes,  and  there  it  has  remained, 
in  Germany,  for  centuries.  "State  churchism 
was  nothing  but  a  makeshift  required  by  the 
exigencies  of  the  times.  As  a  permanent  institu- 
tion it  is  not  in  harmony  with  Luther's  funda- 
mental doctrines."1 

It  was  but  the  natural,  almost  inevitable,  result 
that  Luther's  teaching  as  to  religious  liberty 
should  eventually  lead  to  political  liberty.2  Mr. 
Bryce,  in  reviewing  this  subject,  says  of  the 
Reformation : 

It  became  a  revolt  against  the  principle  of  authority 
in  all  its  forms;  it  erected  the  standard  of  civil  as 
well  as  of  religious  liberty,  since  both  of  them  are 
needed,  though  needed  in  a  different  measure,  for 
the  worthy  development  of  the  individual  spirit. 
.  .  .  The  empire  had  never  been  conspicuously  the 
antagonist  of  popular  freedom,  and  was,  even  under 
Charles  the  Fifth,  far  less  formidable  to  the  common- 
alty than  were  the  territorial  princes  of  Germany. 
But  submission,  and  submission  on  the  ground  of 
indefeasible  transmitted  right,  upon  the  ground  of 
catholic  traditions  and  the  duty  of  the  Christian 
magistrate  to  suffer  heresy  and  schism  as  little  as 
the  parallel  sins  of  treason  and  rebellion,  had  been 
its  constant  claim  and  watchword.  Since  the  days 

1  Nuelsen:  Luther  the  Leader,  pp.  179,  180. 

2  Hartranft's  Biographical  Sketch  of  Luther,  in  The  Library 
of  the  World's  Best  Literature,  Ancient  and  Modern. 


Limits  of  the  State  255 

of  Julius  Caesar  it  had  passed  through  many  phases, 
and  in  so  far  as  it  was  a  Germanic  monarchy,  it  had 
recognised  the  rights  of  the  vassals  and  had  admitted 
the  delegates  of  the  cities  to  a  place  in  the  national 
assembly.  But  these  principles  of  the  mediaeval 
monarchy,  half  feudal,  half  drawn  from  Teutonic 
antiquity,  principles  themselves  now  decaying,  had 
little  to  do  with  the  religious  conceptions  and  the 
Roman  traditions  on  which  the  theory  of  the  empire 
rested.  In  that  theory  there  was  no  place  for  popular 
rights.  .  .  .  And  hence  the  indirect  tendency  of  the 
Reformation  to  narrow  the  province  of  government 
and  exalt  the  privileges  of  the  subject  was  as  plainly 
adverse  to  what  one  may  call  the  imperial  idea  as  the 
protestant  claim  of  the  right  of  private  judgment  was 
to  the  pretensions  of  the  papacy  and  the  priesthood. 
The  remark  must  not  be  omitted  in  passing,  how 
much  less  than  might  have  been  expected  the  religious 
movement  did  at  first  actually  effect  in  the  way  of 
promoting  either  political  progress  or  freedom  of 
conscience.  The  habits  of  centuries  were  not  to  be 
unlearnt  in  a  few  years,  and  it  was  natural  that  ideas 
struggling  into  existence  and  activity  should  work 
erringly  and  imperfectly  for  a  time.1 

Speaking  likewise  of  the  Reformation,  a  Ger- 
man historian  says: 

That  by  its  influence  on  Germany,  on  the  Nether- 
lands, on  England,  and,  for  a  considerable  period,  on 

»  Bryce:  Holy  Roman  Empire,  pp.  380,  381. 


256  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

France,  it  became  the  origin  of  political  freedom  in 
Europe,  can  be  a  matter  of  doubt  only  to  those  who 
"having  eyes,  see  not";  and  this  once  admitted,  it 
will  not  be  difficult  to  show  that  the  same  causes  led 
to  its  being  the  origin  of  political  speculation  also.1 

An  author  of  distinction  in  this  field  of  investi- 
gation makes  the  following  comment: 

It  remains  an  everlasting  title  to  glory  of  the  Re- 
formation that  political  liberty — which  has  nothing 
necessarily  in  common  with  democracy — first  became 
possible  through  its  principles,  in  a  manner  very 
different,  indeed,  to  that  of  antiquity,  when  the  civil 
importance  of  a  small  minority  rested  upon  the  dark 
background  of  the  slavery  of  the  masses.  The 
principles  of  liberty  of  conscience  and  of  universal 
priesthood,  which  make  man  inwardly  free,  lead  also 
involuntarily  to  outward  liberty.  A  people  who  no 
longer  feel  themselves  in  the  position  of  an  obedient 
and  submissive  laity,  at  the  service  of  a  privileged 
clergy,  will  refuse  to  continue  any  longer  in  a  state  of 
passive  obedience  to  the  government,  without  any 
rights  of  their  own.2 

In  successfully  protesting  against  worldly  com- 
pulsion in  matters  of  conscience,  Luther  was  thus 
the  first  in  Europe  effectively  to  raise  the  banner 
of  religious  liberty.  His  teaching  was  a  revelation 

1  Heeren:  Historical  Treatises,  p.  120. 

2  Geffcken:  Church  and  State,  i.,  309. 


Limits  of  the  State  257 

in  the  field  of  European  politics,  as  well  as  reli- 
gious doctrine.  It  spread  like  wild-fire  throughout 
the  continent,  and  its  influence  is  seen  in  the 
political  literature  of  those  countries  already  in 
the  sixteenth  century. 1 

The  fact  that  this  movement  "was  a  product 
of  the  Germanic  spirit  is  evinced  plainly  enough 
by  its  having  taken  hold  of  the  Germanic  peoples 
of  northern  Europe  alone.  These  are  also  the 
nations  whose  inhabitants  possess  the  widest 
degree  of  liberty  to-day."  2 

The  Reformation  emphasised  the  individual  and 
individual  rights  and  powers  that  cannot  be 
properly  or  permanently  controlled  by  the  state. 
Any  attempt  to  do  so  will  only  weaken  the  state 
as  well  as  the  individual.  There  is  a  limit  to  the 
power  of  the  despot  as  well  as  to  that  of  the 
democracy.  "The  cold  hand  of  the  state  should 
not  press  upon  the  inner  kingdom  of  the  soul."3 

According  to  the  modern  view,  there  are  natural 
and  imperative  limits  to  state  action.  Freedom 
of  opinion  and  of  speech  are  two  necessary  liber- 
ties of  a  people,  and  in  consequence  of  the  recog- 
nition of  this  principle,  the  freedom  of  the  press 

1  Gumplowicz:   Geschichte  der  Staatstheorien,  pp.  155-157. 

2  Scherger:  The  Evolution  of  Modern  Liberty ,  p.  36. 

3  Renan:  Les    Apotres.     Quoted    by    Innes:    Church   and 
State,  p.  7. 


258  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

is  sacred  in  all  free  countries.1  "  Religion  and 
science  and  art  have  their  separate  and  well- 
marked  provinces,  in  the  administration  of  which 
they  may  wisely  seek  for  the  co-operation,  though 
they  will  always  jealously  avoid  the  dictation,  of 
the  state/'2  Thought  and  conscience  are  private; 
opinion  is  optional.3  Religion  is  not  a  condition  of 
legal  status.4  ' '  The  state  cannot  make  men  think, 
speak,  or  hold  what  religious  beliefs  it  pleases.  It 
has  no  power  to  do  this,  and  therefore  it  has  no 
right  to  attempt  it;  for  whatever  it  attempts  with- 
out having  also  the  power  to  effect  it  is  a  sign  of 
its  weakness,  impotence,  or  incapacity,  and  of 
its  ignorance  of  its  proper  function  and  work."5 
''Faith  cannot  impose  itself,  and  cannot  be 
adopted  for  the  sake  of  anything, — violence,  de- 
ception, or  utility;  and  hence  it  is  not  faith,  but 
the  delusion  of  faith."  6 

No  state  can  possibly  usurp  this  inalienable  right 
of  freedom  of  moral  and  religious  belief  which  is 
invested  in  the  individual,  however  high  or  low 
that  individual  may  stand  in  the  scale  of  civili- 
sation. Freedom  of  thought,  of  speech,  and  of 

»  Woolsey:  Political  Science,  or  the  State,  i.,  272,  273. 

2  Blackie:  What  does  History  Teach  ?  p.  99. 

3  Wilson:  The  State,  pp.  637,  638. 

*  Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  58. 

5  Duff:  Spinoza's  Political  and  Ethical  Philosophy,  p.  471. 

«  Tolstoi:  Church  and  State,  p.  n. 


Limits  of  the  State  259 

religious  belief,  belong  to  every  individual  alike; 
and  the  state  that  seeks  to  regulate  or  compel  in 
these  matters  attempts  the  impossible  and  only 
contributes  to  its  own  downfall.1 

But  "while  thought  and  belief  are,  and  must 
always  remain,  sui  juris,  or  an  inalienable  function 
of  the  individual,  action  never  can  thus  be  an 
individual  right."2  There  must  be  one  common 
and  sovereign  authority  in  the  state  to  control 
human  action;  but  there  is  no  such  authority 
over  the  mind.  On  this  subject,  Macaulay  de- 
clares:  "The  protestant  doctrine  touching  the 
right  of  private  judgment — that  doctrine  which 
is  the  common  foundation  of  the  Anglican,  the 
Lutheran,  and  the  Calvinistic  churches — that 
doctrine  by  which  every  sect  of  dissenters  vindi- 
cates its  separation — we  conceive  not  to  be  this, 
that  opposite  opinions  may  both  be  true;  nor 
this,  that  truth  and  falsehood  are  both  equally 
good;  nor  yet  this,  that  all  speculative  error  is 

1  In  a  letter  to  the  Presbyterians  of  New  Hampshire  and 
Massachusetts — published     in     the     Massachusetts    Sentinel, 
December    5,    1789 — George    Washington    replied    to    their 
complaint  as  to  the  omission  of  the  name  of  God  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  by  asserting  that  it  "be- 
longed  to   the   churches,  and   not   to   the   state."     Straus: 
The  Origin  of  Republican  Form  of  Government  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  p.  69. 

2  Duff:  Spinoza's  Political  and  Ethical  Philosophy,  p.  487. 


260  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

necessarily  innocent; — but  this,  that  there  is  on 
the  face  of  the  earth  no  visible  body  to  whose 
decrees  men  are  bound  to  submit  their  private 
judgment  on  points  of  faith."1  The  government 
that  fails  to  recognise  these  rights  of  the  individual 
and  secure  them  to  him  does  not  have  a  right  to 
exist.  Humboldt  declares:  "Reason  cannot  desire 
for  man  any  other  condition  than  that  in  which 
each  individual  not  only  enjoys  the  most  absolute 
freedom  of  developing  himself  by  his  own  energies, 
in  his  perfect  individuality,  but  in  which  external 
nature  even  is  left  unfashioned  by  any  human 
agency,  but  only  receives  the  impress  given  to  it 
by  each  individual  of  himself  and  his  own  free  will, 
according  to  the  measure  of  his  wants  and  in- 
stincts, and  restricted  only  by  the  limits  of  his 
powers  and  his  rights."2 

Referring,  again,  to  the  personal  freedom  that 
the  state  should  secure  to  its  citizens,  the  same 
writer  lays  down  the  following  principle : 

In  order  to  provide  for  the  security  of  its  citizens, 
the  state  must  prohibit  or  restrict  such  actions,  refer- 
ring immediately  to  the  agents  alone,  as  imply  the 
infringement  on  others'  rights  in  their  consequences, 

1  Macaulay:  Critical  and  Miscellaneous  Essays,  iii.,  296,  297. 

2  Wilhelm  von  Humboldt:  The  Sphere  and  Duties  of  Govern- 
ment, pp.  17,  1 8. 


Limits  of  the  State  261 

or  encroach  in  these  on  their  freedom  or  property 
without  or  against  their  will;  and  further,  it  must 
forbid  or  restrict  these  actions  when  the  probability 
of  such  consequences  is  fairly  to  be  apprehended, — 
a  probability  in  which  it  must  necessarily  consider 
the  extent  of  the  injury  feared,  and  on  the  other  hand 
the  consequences  of  the  restriction  on  freedom  implied 
in  the  law  contemplated.  Beyond  this,  every  limita- 
tion of  personal  freedom  is  to  be  condemned,  as 
wholly  foreign  to  the  sphere  of  the  state's  activity.1 

The  problem  of  the  present  day  is  to  combine 
the  rights  and  the  interests  of  the  individual  and 
of  the  state,  so  to  develop  the  state  to  its  fullest 
perfection  without  annihilating  individuality,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  to  make  the  most  of  the  individ- 
ual without  undermining  the  sovereignty  of  the 
state.2 

1  Wilhelm  von  Humboldt:  The  Sphere  and  Duties  of  Govern- 
ment, p.  127. 

*  M'Kechnie:  The  State  and  the  Individual,  p.  72. 


CHAPTER  X 

AN  ESTIMATE  OP  LUTHER*S  PLACE  IN  THE  HISTORY 
OF  THE  THEORY  OF  THE  STATE 

IT  is  difficult  to  follow,  in  almost  any  case,  the 
direct  not  less  than  the  indirect  influence  of  a 
new  truth  or  of  a  great  principle ;  but,  once  deeply 
stirred  by  a  great  conception  of  truth,  of  oppor- 
tunity, or  of  duty,  a  people  is  never  again  the 
same.  In  speaking  of  the  Reformation,  Carlyle 
invites  attention  to  this  thought.  "Once  risen 
into  this  divine  white  heat  of  temper,"  he  says, 
"were  it  only  for  a  season  and  not  again,  it  is 
henceforth  considerable  through  all  its  remaining 
history.  Nations  are  benefited  for  ages  by  being 
thrown  once  into  divine  white  heat  in  this  manner, 
and  no  nation  that  has  not  had  such  divine  parox- 
ysms at  any  time  is  apt  to  come  to  much." 

An  idea,  a  concept,  a  truth,  does  not  originate 
with  the  mass,  but  with  the  individual.  Every 
invention,  every  discovery,  every  truth,  every 
principle,  comes,  in  the  first  instance,  not  from 
the  many  nor  from  the  few,  but  from  the  one. 

262 


His  Theory  of  the  State          263 

'The  moving  force -ia,  society r'  -says  Mr.  Taylor,1 
"is  personality.  No  movement,  however  great, 
but  had  its  source  in  a  single  mind;  it  may  change 
the  map  of  a  continent,  decide  the  fate  of  empires 
and  races;  it  may  divide  the  world  like  the  Refor- 
mation; but  its  beginning,  if  it  could  only  be 
traced  to  its  fountain  head,  would  be  found  in 
the  thought  of  a  single  person,  a  person  in  all 
probability  entirely  ignorant  of  the  power  and 
purpose  of  that  germ  idea.  Such  an  idea  spread- 
ing to  other  and  yet  other  minds,  becoming  mixed 
with  other  ideas,  undergoing  strange  transfor- 
mations in  the  {troeess,  but  ever  growing  in 
clearness  and  force  as  time  passes  on,  develops  at 
last  into  that  mighty  thing,  a  public  opinion." 

In  a  given  case  it  may  be  possible  to  locate  the 
fountain  source.  In  the  case  of  the  great  reformer 
of  the  sixteenth  century  it  is  possible  to  trace  his 
words,  his  works,  and  his  influence,  not  only  on 
his  own  race  and  age,  but  on  many  other  peoples 
from  that  day  to  this.  "He  became  the  mouth- 
piece, the  prophet  of  all  those  who  were  sighing 
under  the  yoke  of  foreign  tyranny  and  yearning 
for  national  and  social  liberty."2 

"That  the  Reformation  was  able  to  establish 
itself  in  the  shape  which  it  assumed,"  we  are 

1  Taylor:  The  Individual  and  the  State,  p.  72. 

2  Nuelsen:  Luther  the  Leader,  p.  86. 


264  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

told  by  a  great  historian,1  "was  due  to  the  one 
fact  that  there  existed  at  the  crisis  a  single  person 
of  commanding  mind  as  the  incarnation  of  the 
purest  wisdom  which  then  existed  in  Germany, 
in  whose  words  the  bravest,  truest,  and  most 
honest  men  saw  their  own  thoughts  represented; 
and  because  they  recognised  this  man  as  the  wisest 
among  them,  he  was  allowed  to  impress  on  the 
Reformation  his  own  individuality.  The  traces 
of  that  one  mind  are  to  be  seen  to-day  in  the 
mind  of  the  modern  world.  Had  there  been  no 
Luther,  the  English,  American,  and  German 
peoples  would  be  thinking  differently,  would  be 
acting  differently,  would  be  altogether  different 
men  and  women  from  what  they  are  at  this 
moment." 

Any  brave  man  who  fears  nothing  on  the  earth 
or  under  it,  who  is  willing  to  declare  himself 
faithful  to  his  conscience  and  to  the  word  of 
God,  in  the  presence  of  an  imperial  and  ecclesi- 
astical hostility  that  suggests  the  stake,  and 
who  hurls  defiance  at  Satan  and  all  his  hosts, 
commands  our  attention  and  merits  our  con- 
sideration. It  is  not  the  purpose  or  province 
of  this  study  to  refer  to  Luther's  faith,  work, 
and  influence  as  a  religious  reformer,  or  in  any 
way  to  his  ecclesiastical  attitude  or  activities. 

1  Froude:  Luther,  p.  4. 


His  Theory  of  the  State          265 

It  is  the  sole  function  of  this  work  to  direct  atten- 
tion to  his  views,  his  writings,  and  his  influence 
on  matters  pertaining  to  the  theory  of  the  state. 
It  is  true  that  it  was  in  the  course  of  his  religious 
reform  that  he  was  led  almost  inevitably  to 
suggestions  of  political  reform.  The  doctrine 
of  the  Middle  Ages  was  that  the  church  was 
supreme  over  the  state;  the  clergy  were  held  to 
be  morally  superior  to  the  laity.  They  were  held 
as  exempt,  even  as  to  all  civil  affairs,  from  the 
temporal  authorities  and  the  laws  of  the  land. 
By  baptism  a  man  entered  the  fold  of  the  church 
and  the  rights  of  citizenship.  By  excommuni- 
cation he  lost  his  standing  in  church  and  state. 
The  state,  indeed,  was  viewed  as  an  arm  of  the 
church  to  carry  out  its  will.  It  was  the  emperor's 
duty  to  place  under  the  ban  the  heretic  and  the 
excommunicate.  Failing  to  do  so,  he  incurred 
the  penalty  of  the  interdict  on  land  and  people. 
The  schismatic  and  the  heretic  had  no  rights  before 
the  law.  This  principle  was  rarely  denied  till 
the  Reformation.  Admitted  by  Roman  Catholic 
princes,  and  founded  on  the  Code  of  Justinian, 
it  was  the  basis  of  the  popes'  claim  of  the  right 
to  depose  sovereigns.1 

Luther  denied   to   the   church   any  authority 

1  See  Figgis:   Studies  of  Political  Thought  from  Gerson  to 
Grotius,  p.  17. 


266  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

over  the  state.1  He  declared  that  the  ecclesias- 
tical officer  has  no  coercive  authority.  The  state 
alone  possesses  this  power.  The  spheres  of  church 
and  state  are  absolutely  separate  and  distinct.2 
Thus  the  ecclesiastical  Reformation  led  to  a  po- 
litical one.3  The  sphere  of  the  state  was  extended 
to  include  every  one  within  its  borders  and  to 
include  temporal  affairs  of  every  kind.  "On 
the  whole, "  says  a  recent  writer,  ".  .  .  the 
supremacy  of  the  common  law  of  the  land  upon 
every  one  within  its  borders,  including  the  clergy, 
triumphed  universally  with  the  Reformation."4 
The  Reformation,  therefore,  was  not  only  a 

1  After  the   abdication   of   Charles  V,  the  Imperial  Diet 
declared  it  unnecessary  for  the  emperor  to  be  crowned  by 
the  pope.     Case:  European  Constitutional  History,  p.    112. 

2  "  By  Luther's  entire  conception  of  the  nature  of  the  church 
and  ecclesiastical    authority,  moreover,  every   extension  of 
that  authority,  as  divinely  ordained,  to  the  sphere  of  tem- 
poral, political,  or  civil  life  was  excluded."     Koestlin:  Luther, 
i.,  308. 

3  ' '  Religious  forces,  and  religious  forces  alone,  have  had 
sufficient  influence  to  ensure  practical  realisation  for  political 
ideas.     Reluctantly,   and  in  spite  of  themselves,   religious 
societies  were  led  by  practical  necessities   to  employ  upon 
their  own  behalf  doctrines  which  are  now  the  common  her- 
itage of  the  Western  world.     In  fact,  that  world,  as  we  live 
in  it  and  think  it,  was  really  forged  in  the  clash  of  warring 
sects  and  opinions,  in  the  secular  feuds  between  the  clergy 
and  laity,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  Lutheran  and  Calvinist. " 
Figgis:  Studies  of  Political  Thought  from  Gerson  to  Grotius,  p.  6. 

4  Ibid.,  p.   69. 


His  Theory  of  the  State          267 

religious  and  an  intellectual,  but  a  political  revolt, 
as  it  was  also  a  revolt  of  the  individual  against 
class  or  caste.  "This  great  revival  was  set  in  a 
picturesque  framework  of  human  impulses,  politi- 
cal, intellectual,  moral,  social,  and  economic,  such 
as  the  world  has  seldom  seen  before  or  since."  ! 
It  is  a  great  mistake,  a  grievous  error,  to  regard 
the  movement  of  which  Luther  was  the  source 
and  the  centre  as  purely  religious.  "However 
much  Luther  might  seek  to  narrow  the  reform 
movement  within  the  limit  of  his  own  spiritual 
experience,  it  was  not  possible  to  shake  himself 
free  from  these  political,  intellectual,  social  influ- 
ences of  the  time,  and  he  in  turn  contributed  by 
his  reforming  teaching  and  fervour  to  quicken  these 
influences.  He  was  or  became,  willingly  or  un- 
willingly, wittingly  or  unwittingly,  the  instrument, 
not  merely  of  a  religious  reformation  but  of  a 
many-sided  revolution."2  The  practical  appli- 
cation of  the  theological,  ecclesiastical,  and  ethical 
elements  of  the  Reformation  involved  questions 
of  most  far-reaching  political  and  social  import.3 
Although  these  political  consequences  of  the 
Reformation  did  not  manifest  themselves  all  at 

»  Lindsay:  Luther  and  the  German  Reformation,  p.  i. 

2  Mackinnon:  A  History  of  Modern  Liberty,  pp.  49,  53,  54. 

3  Dunning:  A  History  of  Political  Theories  from  Luther  to 
Montesquieu,  p.  2. 


268  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

once,  "the  results  of  this  movement  upon  the 
enfranchisement  of  the  individual  could  not  but 
show  themselves  sooner  or  later."1  "The  habits 
of  centuries  were  not  to  be  unlearnt  in  a  few  years, 
and  it  was  natural  that  ideas  struggling  into 
existence  and  activity  should  work  erringly  and 
imperfectly  for  a  time."2 

Luther  demanded  the  right  to  think  for  himself. 
The  mind  of  man  may  not  be,  cannot  be,  formed 
or  changed  by  mere  physical  force  or  fiat  of  human 
government,  whether  ecclesiastical  or  civil.  Once 
asserting  and  maintaining  the  freedom  of  the 
individual  conscience,  it  must  inevitably  include 
the  political  as  well  as  the  religious  field  of  thought. 

Luther  was  thus  the  liberator  of  modern 
thought.  External  force  cannot  control  thought, 
the  mind,  the  conscience.  Secular  government 
has  no  authority  over  matters  of  belief.3  Human 
government  cannot  claim  the  right  to  rule  except 
in  that  realm  where  it  can  see,  know,  recognise, 
and  judge.  To  assert  that  it  has  such  right  or 
such  power  is  as  absurd  as  to  declare  that  it  has 
authority  to  command  the  sun  or  moon  to  shine 
or  the  earth  to  revolve.  A  new  era  began  with 

1  Scherger:  The  Evolution  of  Modern  Liberty,  p.  36. 

2  Bryce:  The  Holy  Roman  Empire,  p.  381. 

3  Dunning:  A  History  of  Political  Theories  from  Luther  to 
Montesquieu,  p.  12. 


His  Theory  of  the  State          269 

Martin  Luther's  firm  stand  so  forcibly  stated  in 
his  great  treatises  of  1520,  so  vividly  shown  in 
his  burning  of  the  papal  bull  of  excommunication 
in  the  presence  of  a  large  concourse  of  people,  and 
yet  again  so  fearlessly  and  so  publicly  taken  at 
the  Diet  of  Worms,  in  the  presence  of  the  highest 
and  most  powerful  ecclesiastical  and  imperial 
authority  of  the  age.  This  last  scene, — which  has 
been  termed  one  of  the  finest,  perhaps  the  very 
finest,  scene  in  human  history — is  unquestionably 
a  landmark  in  the  development  of  the  modern 
political  world.  In  spite  of  excommunication 
from  the  church,  in  spite  of  the  ban  of  the  empire, 
the  world  had  changed  in  so  far  that,  though 
protected  by  the  Wartburg  retreat  for  almost  a 
year,  Luther  was  thereafter  practically  safe,  with 
freedom  to  come  and  go  at  will  among  a  liberty- 
loving  people  for  the  remaining  quarter  of  a 
century  of  his  life.1  The  rights  of  the  individual 
conscience  had  been  discovered,  and  the  ban  had 
lost  its  sting.  The  old  and  the  new  met  in  the 
presence  and  in  the  persons  of  Charles  V.,  the 

»  The  historian  Froude  tells  us  that  Luther  did  not  attend 
the  Imperial  Diet  at  Augsburg,  in  1530,  however,  because, 
being  under  the  ban  of  the  empire,  he  could  not  be  permitted 
to  appear  in  the  presence  of  the  emperor.  Froude:  Luther, 
p.  53.  Within  half  a  year  after  Luther's  death,  his  elector, 
John  Frederick,  was  put  under  the  ban  of  the  empire,  and 
the  imperial  army  was  sent  against  him. 


270  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

emperor,  and  Martin  Luther,  the  monk.  The  aim 
and  the  effort  of  the  young  Emperor  to  turn  time 
and  the  world  backward  for  centuries  proved 
futile;  and  Luther  gave  the  Holy  Roman  Empire 
its  death-blow.1 

The  Teuton  has  been  known  throughout  his 
history  as  a  lover  of  liberty.2  For  the  first  con- 
ception of  the  modern  constitutional  and  popular 
government,  we  are  taken  to  that  section  of  Europe 
lying  between  the  rivers  Rhine  and  Elbe  and  to 
the  east  of  the  Elbe.  "The  civilisation  of  the 
present  age  and  the  peoples  who  enjoy  the  blessings 
of  liberty  and  freedom  owe  a  great  debt  of  grati- 
tude to  the  pioneers  of  these  German  forests,  for 
between  the  Rhine  and  the  Elbe  rivers  and  to  the 
east  of  Elbe,  among  these  early  invaders  of  the 
unknown  forests,  breathed  the  first  spirit  of  true 
liberty  based  on  limited  and  popular  government, 
as  now  practised  by  the  English-speaking  peoples. 
There  it  was  conceived  and  had  its  birth ;  there  its 
works  and  blessings  developed  a  people  not  of 
art  and  eloquence,  not  of  fancy,  philosophy,  and 
literature,  but  of  plain  and  strong  morals  and 

1  Figgis:  Studies  of  Political  Thought  from  Gerson  to  Grotius, 
p.  67. 

2  "To  the  Teuton  individual  freedom  is  the  supreme  thing. 
He  is  induced  to  sacrifice  a  part  of  it  to  the  state  in  order 
to  keep  the  rest    all  the  more  securely."     Bluntschli:    The 
Theory  of  the  State,  pp.  41,  42. 


His  Theory  of  the  State          271 

natural  endowments,  with  a  burning  desire  in 
their  conscience  for  justice  and  for  humanity — 
a  people  who  were  to  go  forth  destined  to  rule 
and  to  plant  their  principles  of  freedom  and 
liberty  in  the  hearts  and  consciences  and  minds  of 
the  human  family. " i 

But  Luther's  Appeal  to  the  German  Nobility  was 
"  really  the  first  definite  announcement  that 
Germans  ought  to  work  all  together  for  a  united 
Germany,  and  was  the  first  practical  step  taken 
in  the  movement  to  create  a  German  nationality 
which  has  made  such  an  advance  in  our  own 
generation,  and  whose  end  is  not  yet/'2 

After  continued  efforts  on  the  part  of  the  estates 
of  the  realm  to  secure  effective,  uniform  imperial 
legislation  and  action  to  protect  themselves  and 
their  subjects  against  foreign  interference  and  ag- 
gression, and  against  continual  internal  disturb- 
ance and  petty  warfare,  as  it  was  felt  absolutely 
necessary  to  have  a  stronger  civil  government 
for  the  protection  of  all  rightful  interests  and 
the  punishment  of  evil-doers,  there  was  no  solu- 
tion to  the  problem  but  for  each  elector,  each 

i  Tapp:  The  Story  of  Anglo-Saxon  Institutions,  or  the 
Development  of  Constitutional  Government,  pp.  39,  40. 

J  Lindsay:  Luther  and  the  German  Reformation,  pp.  107,  108. 
"Modern  states  are  essentially  national  states."  Bluntschli: 
The  Theory  of  the  State,  p.  56. 


272  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

prince,  each  free  city,  to  take  measures  to  accom- 
plish the  necessary  reforms.  This  undoubtedly 
would  have  happened,  in  view  of  the  necessity, 
though  the  religious  Reformation  had  not  come 
about;  and  this  increasing  authority  and  power  of 
the  separate  states  of  the  empire  cannot  be  attrib- 
uted— certainly  not  entirely — to  Luther's  teach- 
ing. Luther,  personally,  would  have  strengthened 
the  nation  and  the  national  power  as  a  unit; 
but,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  the 
nation,  with  a  peculiarly  weak  confederacy  of 
the  whole,  was  unequal  to  the  task,  and  the 
natural  and  inevitable  result  was  a  stronger, 
unitary,  individual  state.  Charles  V  had  a  golden 
opportunity,  but  he  failed  to  see  or  use  it.  We 
have  no  right,  it  must  be  admitted,  to  demand  that 
Charles  V,  on  the  one  hand,  or  that  Luther,  on 
the  other  hand,  should  see  matters  of  this  nature 
in  the  light  that  the  developments  of  centuries 
have  enabled  us  to  see  them.  Both  of  them  must 
be  judged  in  the  light  of  their  age. 

That  Luther  changed  his  views  to  a  limited 
degree  on  certain  subjects  connected  with  civil 
government  is  only  to  say  that  he  became  wiser 
in  the  light  of  new  developments  and  larger  ex- 
perience; but  on  essential  points  he  is  absolutely 
consistent  in  all  his  writings  and  in  all  his  actions 
alike.  That  the  years  following  his  activity 


His  Theory  of  the  State          273 

brought  a  reaction  along  some  lines  is  an  historical 
fact  for  which  he  is  in  no  way  responsible.  In 
his  own  day,  he  did  not  change  the  map  of  the 
political  world  to  any  appreciable  extent,  but  he 
did  change  the  field  and  the  sphere  of  inalienable 
individual  rights.  His  sober  and  vigorous  criti- 
cism of  political  conditions  operated  as  a  mighty 
impulse  in  the  field  of  the  theory  of  the  state, 
and  his  teaching  operated  in  the  European  field 
of  politics  as  a  new  revelation.1  In  the  light  of 
the  truths  and  principles  asserted  by  him,  it  may 
truly  be  asserted  of  him  and  his  age:  "The  en- 
during work  of  the  sixteenth  century  was  the 
modern  state.  Its  legal  omnipotence  and  unity, 
the  destruction  of  all  competing  powers,  separate 
or  privileged,  were  assured,  and  a  universal  all- 
embracing  system  of  law  became  possible."2 

The  date  of  the  beginning  of  the  modern  age 
has  been  much  discussed  by  various  writers 
viewing  the  subject  from  different  standpoints. 
Mr.  Bluntschli,  for  example,  dates  the  modern  era 
from  the  year  1740.  He  gives  the  following 
reasons  for  this  selection : 

The  rise  of  the  Prussian  kingdom,  Joseph  IPs 
reforms  in  Austria,  the  foundation  of  the  United 

1  Gumplowicz:  Geschichte  der  Staatstheorien,  pp.  55-57. 

2  Figgis:  Stiidies  of  Political  Thought  from  Gerson  to  Grotius, 
P-  133- 

18 


274  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

States  of  North  America,  the  changes  of  the  French 
Revolution  and  the  Napoleonic  empire,  the  trans- 
planting of  constitutional  monarchy  to  the  continent, 
the  attempted  introduction  of  representative  democ- 
racy, the  foundation  of  national  states,  the  gradual 
removal  of  religious  privileges  and  disabilities  in 
public  law,  the  separation  of  church  and  state  or  at 
least  the  clear  demarcation  between  their  spheres, 
the  abolition  of  feudalism  and  of  all  privileged  orders, 
the  rise  of  the  conception  of  national  unity,  the  recog- 
nition of  the  freedom  of  society, — all  these  are  the 
achievements  or  at  least  the  attempts  of  the  modern 
state.1 

Mr.  Sidgwick,  considering  the  movement  to 
absolute  monarchy,  is  disposed,  from  that  point 
of  view,  to  place  the  beginning  of  modern  history 
"in  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century — 
treating  the  period  of  the  Renaissance,  and  the 
period  of  the  Reformation  and  the  religious  strife 
that  followed,  as  constituting  a  long  transition 
between  mediaeval  and  modern  thought.  By  the 
middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  treaty  of 
Westphalia  (A.D.  1648)  has  closed  the  period  of 
religious  wars;  and  then,  or  not  long  after,  it  is 
clear  that  in  most  West  European  states,  monarchy 
is  predominant  over  elements  in  the  state  that 
have  struggled  with  it. "  2 

1  Bluntschli:  The  Theory  of  the  State,  pp.  52,  53. 

2  Sidgwick:  The  Development  of  European  Polity,  p.  323. 


His  Theory  of  the  State          275 

Yet  another  writer,  tracing  by  stages  the 
democratic  revolution  in  the  life  of  the  western 
world,  declares  that  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth 
centuries  delivered  the  kings  from  the  domination 
of  the  church  and  the  empire;  the  sixteenth  and 
seventeenth  centuries  made  the  kings  subordinate 
to  the  nobility  and  the  gentry;  the  eighteenth 
and  nineteenth  centuries  saw  the  middle  class 
become  dominant;  and  that  there  now  remains 
to  be  accomplished  the  supremacy  of  the  hand- 
worker and  the  wage-earner — the  common  people. l 

These  several  views,  however,  consider  the 
beginning  of  the  modern  age  rather  from  the 
standpoint  of  practical  politics.  When  we  review 
the  various  political  principles  enunciated  by 
Luther,  we  cannot  but  recognise  and  acknowledge 
that  the  fundamental  and  inalienable  rights  of 
the  individual  and  the  unquestioned  duties  of  the 
state,  as  held  in  the  modern  civilised  world,  are 
clearly  set  forth  by  him  in  the  first  half  of  the 
sixteenth  century.  Known  and  widely  proclaimed 
as  a  theologian,  a  university  professor,  a  preacher, 
a  poet,  a  hymn  writer,  a  musical  composer,  a 
humourist  and  satirist,  a  naturalist,  the  modern 
world  loses  sight  of  his  position  and  influence  in 
the  field  of  politics  as  a  teacher,  a  prophet,  a 
statesman. 

1  Crapsey:  Religion  and  Politics,  p.  283. 


276  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

SUMMARY  OF  LUTHER'S  POLITICAL   PRINCIPLES 

I.  The   origin    of   the    state.     The    state,  as 
natural  and  necessary  to  man,  is  as  truly  divine 
in  its  origin  as  the  creation  of  man  himself;  though 
the  nature  or  the  form  of  government  that  may 
be  established  is  a  matter  of  human  determination. 

II.  The  sovereignty  of  the  state.     The  state 
possesses  exclusive  coercive  authority.     To  it,  in 
its  sovereignty,  belongs  all  legislative,  executive, 
and  judicial  jurisdiction  in  temporal  affairs.    This 
jurisdiction  extends  over  every  individual  within 
the  territory  of  the  state — ecclesiastic  and  heretic 
included.     Status  in  the  church  does  not  affect 
or  determine  status  in  the  state.     The  state  does 
not  hold  or  wield  a  sword  in  the  interests  of  the 
church. 

The  national  state  is  the  natural  unit  of  civil 
government.  Foreign  interference — whether  eccle- 
siastical or  civil — is  not  to  be  tolerated.  Every 
individual  is  in  duty  bound  to  obedience  to  civil 
authority,  legally  constituted  and  exercised,  unless 
it  be  a  command  to  do  that  which  is  explicitly 
prohibited  by  the  word  of  God. 

A  government  may  be  constitutionally  reformed 
or  altered.  Illegal  or  unconstitutional  government 
may  be  overthrown.  Ultra  vires  commands  or 
acts  have  no  force  or  validity.  Submission  is  not 


His  Theory  of  the  State          277 

a  duty  and  self-defence  is  a  right  of  the  individual 
in  case  of  tyranny. 

III.  The  objects  of  the  state.     The  primary 
object  of  the  state  is  to  protect  the  good,  punish 
the  wicked,   and  maintain   public  peace.     Civil 
government  is  to  be  conducted  in  the  interests  of 
the  governed — not  of  any  particular  person  or 
persons,  any  class  or  classes,  but  on  behalf  of 
all  the  people.     Whatever  the  form  of  government 
— as  Luther  expresses  no  preference — civil  author- 
ity is  a  sacred  trust.     To  every  man  is  to  be  given 
equal  consideration  and  opportunity,  under  similar 
conditions. 

IV.  The  functions  of  the  state.     It  is  the  duty 
of  the  state  to  educate  its  youth  not  only  in  the 
secular  field  of  learning,   but  also  along  moral 
and  religious  lines.     It  should  care  for  its  poor, 
protect  its  subjects  against  monopolies,  extortion, 
gambling,  and  public  immorality. 

V.  The   limits   of   the   state.     Religious   and 
civil  liberty — of  conscience,  speech,  and  press — 
are  inalienable  rights  belonging  alike  to  every 
individual,   subject  only  to  the  equal  rights  of 
others,  the  maintenance  of  public  peace  and  order, 
and  the  sovereign  power  of  the  state  over  the 
external  life,  where  it  touches  the  lives  of  others. 

In  all  these  respects,  Luther  lives  yet  to-day, 


278  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

for  these  principles  are  the  fundamental  ones  in 
force  under  the  enlightened  governments  of  the 
world  at  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth  century. 
Nor  have  we  yet  fully  realised  his  ideals.  Perhaps 
we  never  shall.1  Leopold  von  Ranke  regarded 
the  Reformation  as  a  great  political  force  working 
political  transformations  not  yet  ended.  The  best 
thought  and  the  highest  political  leadership  of  the 
age  is  calling  now,  not  for  more,  but  better  govern- 
ment, not  wealth  for  the  favoured  few,  not  govern- 
ment in  the  interests  of  a  certain  class  or  classes, 
but  on  behalf  of  the  masses  and  of  the  people  as  a 
whole.  The  government  itself,  in  Luther's  view, 
may  be  by  prince  or  people,  but  it  must  be  govern- 
ment for  the  people.  To  this  end  it  is  a  trust 
from  above. 

In  the  light  of  his  attitude  on  all  these  political 
questions,  we  must  recognise  in  Luther  not  merely 
a  prophet,  or  a  forerunner,  but  the  founder  of 
the  modern  theory  of  the  state ;  not  that  he  secular- 
ised it,  but  he  declared  it  to  be  absolutely  separate 
and  distinct  from  the  church  and  the  sole  possessor 
of  coercive  authority  and  sovereign  power;  and 

i  "The  idea  or  ideal  of  the  state  presents  a  picture,  in  the 
splendour  of  imaginary  perfection,  of  the  state  as  not  yet 
realised,  but  to  be  striven  for."  Bluntschli:  The  Theory 
of  the  State  t  p.  15.  This  may  be  truly  said  of  Luther's 
Staatsidee. 


His  Theory  of  the  State          279 

with  this  theory  of  the  state,  he  declares  the  in- 
alienable liberty  of  the  mind  of  man,  of  the 
human  soul,  of  the  individual  conscience.  "The 
dearest  goods  of  our  estate,'*  says  Dr.  Hedge, 
"civil  independence,  spiritual  emancipation,  indi- 
vidual scope,  the  large  room,  the  unbound  thought, 
the  free  pen,  whatever  is  most  characteristic  of 
this  New  England  of  our  inheritance — we  owe  to 
the  Saxon  reformer.  .  .  .  Modern  civilisation,  lib- 
erty, science,  social  progress,  attest  the  world-wide 
scope  of  the  protestant  reform,  whose  principles 
are  independent  thought,  freedom  from  ecclesi- 
astical thrall,  defiance  of  consecrated  wrong."1 

Luther  was  a  German,  but  he  is  claimed  to-day 
by  all  lands  and  all  civilisations  as  an  epoch- 
maker,2  as  a  beacon  light  of  history,  for  he  is  the 


1  Hedge:    Commemorative   Discourse,    Massachusetts    His- 
torical Society,  1883,  pp.  17,  39. 

2  "The  acknowledgment  of  the  political  rights  of  the  middle 
classes  may  ...  be  said  to  date  from  the  Reformation  only." 
Wace  and  Buchheim:  Luther's  Primary  Works,  p.  463. 

"Luther  created  an  epoch  in  the  world's  history.  "  Mac- 
kinnon:  A  History  of  Modern  Liberty,  ii.,  108. 

Even  D6llinger  admits  that  Luther  "has  stamped  the 
imperishable  seal  of  his  soul  alike  upon  the  German  language 
and  the  German  mind:  even  those  Germans,  who  abhor  him 
most  as  the  powerful  heretic  and  the  seducer  of  the  nation, 
cannot  escape ;  they  must  discourse  with  his  words,  they  must 
think  with  his  thoughts.  "  Lindsay:  Luther  and  the  German 
Reformation,  p.  266, 


280  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

founder  of  modern  liberty;  his  "service  to  mankind 
was  nothing  less  than  the  successful  declaration 
of  individual  freedom  of  conscience  from  the 
dictates  of  any  human  authority."1 

4 'It  is  not  incorrect  to  say  that  Luther  has  been 
the  restorer  of  liberty  in  modern  times,"  says  a 
Roman  Catholic  historian.2  "If  he  denied  it  in 
theory,  he  established  it  in  practice.  If  he  did 
not  create,  he  at  least  courageously  affixed  his 
signature  to  that  great  revolution,  which  rendered 
the  right  of  examination  lawful  in  Europe.  And 
if  we  exercise  in  all  its  plenitude  at  this  day  this 
first  and  highest  privilege  of  human  intelligence, 
it  is  to  him  we  are  mostly  indebted  for  it;  nor 
can  we  think,  speak,  or  write,  without  being  made 
conscious  at  every  step  of  the  immense  benefit 
of  this  intellectual  enfranchisement.  To  whom 
do  I  owe  the  power  of  publishing  what  I  am  even 
now  inditing,  except  to  the  liberator  of  modern 
thought?" 

The  Reformed  historian,  D'Aubigne,  declares: 
"Luther  was  the  first  to  proclaim  the  great 
principles  of  humanity  and  religious  liberty.  He 
was  far  beyond  his  own  age,  and  even  beyond  many 
of  the  reformers,  in  toleration." 

The    American     historian    Bancroft     asserts: 

1  Muzzey:  Spiritual  Heroes,  p.  302. 

2  Michelet :  The  Life  of  Martin  Luther,  p.  xii. 


His  Theory  of  the  State          281 

''Luther  repelled  the  use  of  violence  in  religion; 
he  protested  against  propagating  reforms  by 
persecution,  and  with  a  wise  moderation  he 
maintained  the  sublime  doctrine  of  freedom  of 


conscience." 


The  secretary  to  the  Catholic  Union  of  Great 
Britain,  the  Roman  Catholic  historian,  Lilly, 
assures  us  that  it  is  not  only  in  the  distinctly 
religious  domain  that  Luther's  teaching  has  been 
so  influential  and  so  far-reaching.  He  declares 
that  the  French  Revolutionists  were  debtors  to 
Luther  for  that  doctrine  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 
individual  which  is  the  very  foundation  of  Rous- 
seau's Control  Social,  and  of  The  Declaration  of 
the  Rights  of  Man  and  the  Citizen,  formulated  by 
Rousseau's  disciples.1 

The  priceless  blessings  of  liberty  and  the  rights 
of  conscience  recognised,  enjoyed,  and  guaranteed 
in  our  own  great  republic,  and  working  like  leaven 
among  all  peoples  who  do  not  enjoy  them,  are, 
directly  and  indirectly,  the  result  of  the  truths  and 
principles  so  clearly  and  so  forcibly  proclaimed  by 
Martin  Luther  nearly  four  hundred  years  ago.2 

»  Lilly:  Renaissance  Types,  p.  299. 

a  Charles  Dudley  Warner  declares:  "The  United  States, 
Great  Britain  and  its  world-encircling  colonies,  Holland  and 
its  dependencies,  the  German  empire,  are  to-day  what  they 
are  largely  because  of  the  life  of  Martin  Luther."  Scherer: 
Four  Princes,  p.  242. 


APPENDIX 
([BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  WORKS  CONSULTED  AND  CITED 

ACTON,  LORD  JOHN  EDWARD  EMERICH:  Lectures  on  Modern 

History,  1906. 
AQUINAS,  THOMAS:  Opuscula  contra  err  ores  Gracorum. 

De  Regimine  Principum. 

Summa  contra  Gentiles. 

Summa  Theologia. 

ARISTOTLE:  Politics.     Translation  by  Benjamin  Jowett,  1905. 
AUGSBURG  CONFESSION. 
AUGUSTINE,  ST.:  Confessiones. 

De  Civitate  Dei. 

Sermons  in  Ante-Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers. 
AUSTIN,  JOHN:  Lectures  on  Jurisprudence,  or  the  Philosophy 

of  Positive   Law.     Without   date.     Edited    by    Robert 

Campbell. 
BEARD,  CHARLES:  The  Reformation  of  the  Sixteenth  Century 

in  its  Relation  to  Modern  Thought  and  Knowledge.   7In 

Hibbert  Lectures,  ^$Q," 
BERINGTON,  JOSEPH:  The  History  of  the  Reign  of  Henry  the 

Second,   and   of  Richard  and   John,  his   Sons;  with  the 

Events  of  the  Period  from  1154  to  1216.     2  vols.,  1790. 
BLACKIE,  JOHN  STUART:    What  does  History   Teach?    1886. 
BLUNTSCHLI,   J.   K.:    The   Theory  of  the  State.     Authorised 

English  Translation  from  the  sixth  German  edition,  1885. 

Geschichte    der    neueren    Statswissenschaft,     allgemeines 

Statsrecht  und  Politik:   seit  dem  16  Jahrhundert  bis  zur 

Gegenwart.     Dritte    Auflage  (1881). 

Deutsches_Staatsworterbuch. 
283 


284  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

BODIN:  De  la  Republique. 

BRYAN,  WILLIAM  JENNINGS.  Editor  in  Chief  of  The  World's 
Famous  Orations,  10  volsf^  Copyright  1906. 

BRYCE,  JAMES:  The  Holy  Roman  Empire,  1904. 
Studies  in  History  and  Jurisprudence,  1901. 

BULLOWA,  FERDINAND  EZRA  M.:  The  History  of  the  Theory 
of  Sovereignty,  1895. 

BURGESS,  JOHN  W.:  Political  Science  and  Comparative  Con- 
stitutional Law.  2  vols.,  1890. 

CASE,  NELSON:  European  Constitutional  History;  or  the 
Origin  and  Development  of  the  Governments  of  Modern 
Europe  (copyright,  1902). 

CHAMBERLAIN,  L.  T.:  The  State,  its  Nature,  Origin,  and  Func- 
tions, 1898. 

CICERO:  De  Republica. 

COULANGES,  FUSTEL  DE:  The  Ancient  City;  a  Study  of  the 
Religion,  Laws,  and  Institutions  of  Greece  and  Rome. 
Translated  by  Willard  Small,  1874. 

CRAPSEY,  ALGERNON  SIDNEY:  Religion  and  Politics,  1905. 

CURTEIS,  G.  H.:  The  Three  Conflicting  Theories  of  Church 
and  State.  In  Contemporary  Review,  February,  1878, 
vol.  xxxi. 

DANTE:  Monarchia. 

D'AUBIGNE,  J.  H.  MERLE:  History  of  the  Reformation  of 
the  Sixteenth  Century.  Translation  by  H.  White  (with- 
out date).  5  vols. 

DODD,  WALTER  FAIRLEIGH:  Modern  Constitutions.  2  vols., 
1909. 

DUFF,  ROBERT  A.:  Spinoza's  Political  and  Ethical  Philosophy, 
1903. 

DUNNING,    WILLIAM    ARCHIBALD:    A    History    of   Political 
Theories,  Ancient  and  Medieval,  1902. 
A  History  of  Political   Theories  from  Luther  to  Montes- 
quieu, 1905. 

EUSEBIUS:  Ecclesiastical  History. 

FIGGIS,  JOHN  NEVILLE:  Studies  of  Political  Thought  from 
Gerson  to  Grotius,  1414-1625.  1907. 


Appendix  285 

FISHER,  GEORGE  PARK:  The  Reformation,  1906. 

FISKE,  JOHN:  Civil  Government  in  the  United  States  Consid- 
ered with  Some  Reference  to  its  Origins,  1890. 

FROUDE,  JAMES  ANTHONY:  Luther,  a  short  Biography,  1884. 

GEFFCKEN,  HEINRICH:  Church  and  State;  their  Relations 
Historically  Developed.  Translated  by  Edward  Fair- 
fax Taylor.  2  vols.,  1877. 

GIERKE,  OTTO:  Political  Theories  of  the  Middle  Age. 
Translated  by  F.  W.  Maitland,  1900. 

GOETHE:  Gotz  von  Berlichingen  mit  der  eisernen  Hand. 

GREEN,  JOHN  RICHARD:  A  Short  History  of  the  English  People. 
4  vols.,  1901. 

GREEN,  THOMAS  HILL:  Lectures  on  the  Principles  of  Political 
Obligation,  1895. 

GUMPLOWICZ,   LUDWIG:   Geschichte  der  Staatstheorien,   1905. 

HALL  AM:  Middle  Ages. 

HARNACK,  ADOLPH:  History  of  Dogma.  Translation  pub- 
lished by  Williams  and  Norgate,  London,  1899. 

HAY,  CHARLES  E.:  Luther  the  Reformer  (copyright   1898). 

HEDGE,  FREDERIC  H.:  Commemorative  Discourse,  Massa- 
chusetts Historical  Society.  The  Commemoration  of  the 
4Ooth  Anniversary  of  the  Birth  of  Martin  Luther, 
November  10,  1883. 

HEEREN,  A.  H.  L.:  Historical  Treatises:  the  Political  Conse- 
quences of  the  Reformation;  the  Rise,  Progress,  and  Prac- 
tical Influence  of  Political  Theories;  the  Rise  and  Growth 
of  the  Continental  Interests  of  Great  Britain,  1836. 

HENDERSON,  ERNEST  FLAGG:  Select  Historical  Documents  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  1903. 

HENRY,  PAUL:  The  Life  and  Times  of  John  Calvin  the  Great 
Reformer.  Translated  by  Henry  Stebbing.  2  vols.,  1849. 

HOFFMAN,  FRANK  SARGENT:  The  Sphere  of  the  State;  or,  the 
People  as  a  Body-Politic,  1894. 

HOOKER,  RICHARD:  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  1617. 

HUMBOLDT,  WILHELM  VON:  Sphere  and  Duties  of  Government. 
Translated  by  Joseph  Coulthard,  Jr.,  1854. 

HUXLEY:  Method  and  Results. 


286  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

INNES,  A.  TAYLOR:  Church  and  State.  Second  edition 
(without  date). 

JANSSEN,  JOHANNES:  History  of  the  German  People  at  the 
Close  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Second  English  (Herder) 
edition,  revised,  1905.  12  vols. 

JELLINEK,  GEORG:  The  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  and  of 
Citizens.  Translated  by  Max  Farrand,  1901. 

JENKS,  EDWARD:  Law  and  Politics  in  the  Middle  Ages,  1898. 
A  History  of  Politics,  1900. 

KANT,  IMMANUEL:  Rechtslehre.  Principles  of  Politics,  trans- 
lated by  William  Hastie,  1891. 

KELLY,  EDMOND:  Evolution  and  Effort;  and  their  Relation  to 
Religion  and  Politics,  1898. 

KOESTLIN,  JULIUS:  Life  of  Martin  Luther.     2  vols. 

LECKY,  W.  E.  H.:  History  of  the  Rise  and  Influence  of  the 

ki£  Spirit  of  Rationalism  in  Europe.  2  vols.  Second  edi- 
tion, 1865. 

LEWIS,  CHARLTON  T.:  A  History  of  Germany  from  the  Earliest 
Times;  founded  on  Dr.  David  Muller's  History  of  the 
German  People.  (Copyright,  1874  and  1902.) 

LILLY,  W.  S. :  Renaissance  Types,  1901. 

LINDSAY,  THOMAS  M.:  Luther  and  the  German  Reformation, 
1900. 
A  History  of  the  Reformation.     2  vols.,  1906. 

LOCKE,  JOHN:  Two  Treatises  on  Civil  Government,  1903. 

LUTHER,  MARTIN:  D.  Martin  Luther's  Werke.  Kritische 
Gesammtausgabe.  Hermann  Bohlau,  Weimar,  1883- 
J9 — •  33  volumes  now  out.  Not  yet  complete.  As 
far  as  practicable,  references  have  been  made  to  this 
critical  edition. 

Dr.    Martin   Luther's   Sdmmtliche   Schriften,   hrsg.   von 
Dr.   Joh.   Georg  Walch.   Concordia  Publishing   House, 
St.  Louis,  Mo.,  1881-19 — .     24  volumes  now  out. 
Luther's  Primary  Works.    Wace   and    Buchheim,    1896. 
The  Letters  of  Martin  Luther:  Selected  and  Translated 
by  Margaret  A.  Currie,  1908. 
Brief e,  ed.  De  Wette.     6  Bande,  Berlin,  1825. 


Appendix  287 

Luther  on  Education,  by  F.  V.  N.  Painter    (copyright, 

1889). 
MACAULAY,  THOMAS  BABINGTON:  Critical  and  Miscellaneous 

Essays.  5  vols.,  1842. 
MACHIAVELLI:  The  Prince. 
MACKINNON,  JAMES:  A  History  of  Modern  Liberty.  2  vols,, 

1906. 
MAINE,   HENRY  SUMNER:  Ancient  Law.     Third  American, 

from  fifth  London  edition  of  1873. 
MARSILIUS  OF  PADUA:  Defensor  Pads. 
M'KECHNIE,  WILLIAM  SHARP:  The  State  and  the  Individual, 

1896. 
MERRIAM,  C.  E.,  Jr.:  History  of  the  Theory  of  Sovereignty 

since  Rousseau,  1900. 
MICHELET,  M.:  The  Life  of  Martin  Luther,  gathered  from  his 

own  writings.     Translated  by  G.  H.  Smith,  1846. 
Monumenta  Germanics  Historica. 
MORLEY,  JOHN:  Rousseau.     2  vols.,  1873. 
MUZZEY,  DAVID  SAVILLE:  Spiritual  Heroes;  a  Study  of  Some 

of  the  World's  Prophets,  1902. 
NICHOLAS  OF  CUSA:  De  Concordantia  Catholica. 
NUELSEN,  JOHN  Louis:  Luther  the  Leader,  1906. 
PAULSEN,  FRIEDRICH:  The  German  Universities;  their  Character 

and  Historical  Development.     Authorised  translation  by 

Edward  Delavan  Perry,  1895. 
PETERMAN,   ALEXANDER  L.:   Elements  of  Civil  Government 

(copyright,  1891). 
POLLOCK,   SIR  FREDERICK:  An  Introduction  to  the  History 

of  the  Science  of  Politics,  1902. 
POLYBIUS:    Histories.     Translated    by    Evelyn    S.    Schuck- 

burgh,  2  vols.,  1889. 

POOLE,  REGINALD  LANE:  Illustrations  of  the  History  of  Medie- 
val Thought  in  the  Departments  of  Theology  and  Ecclesias- 
tical Politics,  1884. 

PRALL,  WILLIAM:  The  State  and  the  Church,  1900. 
PRESCOTT,   WILLIAM   H.:    The  History  of  the   Reign   of  the 

Emperor  Charles  V.,  by  William  Robertson,  D.D.,  with 


288  Political  Theories  of  Martin  Luther 

an  Account  of  the  Emperor's  Life  after  his  Abdication 

by  William  H.  Prescott.     3  vols.,  1857. 
RANEE,  LEOPOLD:  History  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany. 

Second  edition,  translated  by  Sarah  Austin,  1845. 
RAUMER,  FRIEDRICH  VON:   Ueber  die  geschichtliche  Entwicke- 

lung   der   Begriffe  von   Recht,    Staat   und   Politik,    1832. 
RENAN,  ERNEST:  Les  Apotres. 
RITCHIE:  Principles  of  State  Interference. 
ROBINSON,  JAMES  HARVEY:  Translations  and  Reprints  from 

the  Original  Sources  of  European  History,  published  by 

the  University  of  Pennsylvania.     Vol.  iii.,  No.  6  (1901;. 
ROUSSEAU:  Contrat  Social. 
RUSSELL,  JAMES   E.:    German   Higher   Schools;  the  History, 

Organization,   and   Methods  of  Secondary  Education  in 

Germany,  1899. 
SCHERER,  JAMES  A.  B.:  Four  Princes,  or  the  Growth  of  a 

Kingdom,  1903. 
SCHERGER,   GEORGE  L.:   The  Evolution  of  Modern  Liberty, 

1904. 

SCHILLER:  Das  Eleusische  Fest. 
SCHOENFELD,  HERMANN:  German  Historical  Prose,  1895. 

Kaiserwahl    Karl's    V   (1519}    von    Leopold   von   Ranke 

(copyright,    1899). 

Women  of  the  Teutonic  Nations,  1907  (volume  viii.,  in  the 

series  Woman  in  all  Ages  and  in  all  Countries). 
SHELDON,  HENRY  C.:  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  Fourth 

edition  (copyright,  1906). 
SIDGWICK,  HENRY:  Elements  of  Politics,  1897. 

The  Development  of  European  Polity,  1903. 
STANLEY,  ARTHUR  PENRHYN:  Essays   Chiefly  on   Questions 

of  Church  and  State  from  1850  to  1870.     (1870.) 
STRAUS,  OSCAR  S. :  The  Origin  of  Republican  Form  of  Govern- 
ment in  the  United  States  of  America,  1901. 
STUBBS,   WILLIAM:    The   Constitutional  History  of  England; 

in  its  Origin  and  Development.     3  vols.,  1878. 
SULLIVAN,    JAMES:    The    Antecedents    of   the    Declaration    of 

Independence.     In  the  Annual  Report  of  the  American 


Appendix  289 

Historical   Association  for   the    year   1902,   vol.  i.,  pp. 

67-81. 
TAPP,   SIDNEY   C.:    The  Story  of  Anglo-Saxon  Institutions; 

or  the  Development  of  Constitutional  Government,    1904. 
TAYLOR,  BAYARD:  The  History  of  Germany  from  the  Earliest 

Times  to  the  Present  Day,  1894. 
TAYLOR,   THOMAS  WARDLAW,  JR.:   The  Individual  and  the 

State,  1895. 

THATCHER,  OLIVER  J.:  The  Ideas  that  have  Influenced  Civili- 
zation; in  the  Original  Documents.     10  vols.  (copyright, 

1901). 
TOLSTOI,    LEO:    Church   and    State.     Translated    by    Victor 

Yarros,  1891. 
TURNER,  SAMUEL  EPES:  A  Sketch  of  the  Germanic  Constitution 

from  Early  Times  to  the  Dissolution  of  the  Empire,  1888. 
UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA,  CONSTITUTION. 
WARNER,  CHARLES  DUDLEY:    Article  on  Luther,  in  Library 

of  the  World's  Best  Literature. 
WATT,  W.  A.:  Outline  of  Legal  Philosophy. 
WILLIAM  OF  OCKHAM:  Octo  Qucestiones. 

Dialogus. 
WILLOUGHBY,  WESTEL  WOODBURY:  An  Examination  of  the 

Nature  of  the  State,  1896. 

The  Political  Theories  of  the  Ancient  World,  1903. 
WILSON,  WOODROW:  The  State,  1901. 
WOOLSEY,    THEODORE    D.:    Political    Science,    or    the    State. 

2  vols.,  1893. 


INDEX 


Adams,  John,  Letter  to  John 

Taylor,  188 
Alvarius  Pelagius,  23 
Aquinas,  Thomas,  18,  19,  66, 

171,  205 

Aristotle,  I,  3,  64,  168,  185 
Augustine,  13,  65 
Austin,  87 

B 

Benedictus  Levita,  15 
Blackstone,  68,  93 
Bodin,  86,  91,  186 
Burke,  174 


Carlyle,  262 
Charlemagne,  9-11 
Charles  IV,  36 
Charles  V,  57  et  seq.,  129 
Cicero,  65 

Clericis  Laicos,  Bull,  20,  21 
Constantine,  5-8,  15 
Contract     Theories    of     the 
State,  67-70 


D 


Dante,  19,  20,  169 

De  Lolme,  90 

Divine  Right  of  Kings,  70-73 

Donation  of  Constantine,  15 


E 


Economic  Conditions  in  Ger- 
many in  Luther's  Day,  48- 

50 

Education,  47,  48,  192  et  seq. 
Erasmus,  194 


Finance  and  Trade,  205-220 
Force  Theory  of  the  Origin  of 

the  State,  69 
Froude,  263,  264,  269 


Galerius,  5 

Gelasius,  8 

Gibbon,  5 

Golden  Bull,  36 

Governmental  Contract  The- 
ory of  the  Origin  of  the 
State,  68,  69 

Guizot,  9 


H 


Hegel,  174 

Henry  II  of  England,  16 
Henry  IV,  Emperor,  14 
Hobbes,  67,  69 
Hooker,  66,  67 
Humboldt,  Wilhelm  von,  173, 
260,  261 


291 


292 


Index 


Huss,  John,  30 
Huxley,  173 

I 

Industrial  Guilds,  50,  51 
Inter  C&tera  Divines ,  26 
Ireland,  16,  17 
Isidore,  Pseudo-decretals  of, 

12,  15 


Jellinek,  94 

John,  King  of  England,  17 

John  of  Salisbury,  16 


Kant,  62,  182 


Lactantius,  7 

Licet  Juris,  24 

Licinius,  5,  6 

Locke,  68,  173 

Louis,  the  Bavarian,  24 

Luther,  59  et  seq.;  views  on 
the  Nature,  Necessity,  and 
Origin  of  the  State,  73-81, 
83;  on  the  Sovereignty  of 
the  State,  viewed  inter- 
nally, 95-106;  on  the  Sov- 
ereignty of  the  State,  view- 
ed externally,  107-134;  on 
the  Right  of  Reform,  138- 
162;  on  the  Objects  of  the 
State,  175-182,  184;  on 
the  Functions  of  the  State 
in  general,  190-231;  on 
Education,  195-201,  203, 
204;  on  Finance  and  Trade, 
205-220;  on  Marriage, 
Morality,  and  Prostitution, 
220-222;  on  the  Problem  of 


Pauperism,  222-227;  °n 
Sumptuary  Laws,  228-230; 
on  the  Limits  of  the  State, 
234-257;  Summary  of  Lu- 
ther's Political  Theories, 
276  et  seq. 

M 

Macaulay,  259 
Machiavelli,  32,  128 
Maine,  Sir  Henry,  66 
Manegold  von  Lautenbach, 

70,  71 
Marriage  and  Morality,  220- 

222 

Marsilius  of  Padua,  26,  170 
Maximilian,  40,  43-46 
Melanchthon,  172 
Milan,  Edict  of,  6 
Mill,  John  Stuart,  172 
Monopolies,  52 
Montesquieu,  187 
Morley,  on  the  Origin  of  the 
State,  81,  82 

N 

Neander,  6 

Nicholas  of  Cusa  30,  65 


Pastor  jEternus,  26 
Patriarchal    Theory    of    the 

State,  66 
Pauperism,  the  Problem  of, 

222-227 

Philip  of  France,  22 
Pippin,  9 

Pollock,  Sir  Frederick,  92 
Polybius,  65 
Popes: 

Eugene  II,  12 

Gregory  VII,  14,  70 

Adrian  IV,  16 


Index 


293 


Po  pes — Continued 

Innocent  IV,  18 

Boniface  VIII,  20-22 

John  XXII,  23 

Alexander  VI,  26 

Leo  X,  26 
Prierio,  Sylvester    Mazzolini 

de,  108 

R 

Reuchlin,  194 

Roman  Code  introduced  into 

Germany,  53-57 
Roman  Theory  of  the  State,  4 
Rousseau,  69,  91 


Social  Contract  Theory  of 
the  Origin  of  the  State,  66- 
69 

Spencer,  Herbert,  173 

Spinoza,  68,  99,  105 

Sumptuary  Laws,  228-231 


Tertullian,  7 

Toleration,     Constantine's 

Edict  of,  7 
Trade,  Finance  and,  205-220 

U 

Unam  Sanctam,  Bull,  22 
Usury,  207 

W 

Washington,  George,  on  the 
Nature  of  the  State,  83 ;  on 
the  Right  of  Reform,  135; 
on  the  Functions  of  the 
State,  187;  on  the  Limits  of 
the  State,  259 

Watt,  62 

William  of  Ockham,  29,  173 

Wy cliff e,  30 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
TO—*-      202  Main  Library 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2                               3 

4 

5                                6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

RENEWALS:  CALL  (415)  642-3405 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

MAROs.qqn 

MJTO  DISC  FEB  1  1 

i  :n 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 

FORM  NO.  DD6,  60m,  1  783          BERKELEY,  CA  94720 

®$ 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES    06 1  1 0 


CDDSEb3S73 


w 

rfClM-wc 


>94431 


.' 


..;.  ^fj.. 


